Lonie v LiveBetter Services Limited [2023] NSWCATAD 60

Lonie v LiveBetter Services Limited [2023] NSWCATAD 60

LiveBetter discriminated against Ms Lonie by not offering her employment as a Disability Support Worker on the ground of her disabilities. The evidence did not establish that Ms Lonie was unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the role, nor that provision of services or facilities would impose unjustifiable hardship, as required under s49D(4) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The defence relied upon was not substantiated, and Ms Lonie’s complaint was upheld.

Parties
Applicant: Kirstie Lonie; Respondent: LiveBetter Services Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Disability Discrimination in Employment / Principal Judgment Final Determination of Liability and Partial Remedy
Outcome
Complaint substantiated - discrimination found
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Discrimination in Work, Inherent Requirements of Employment, Unjustifiable Hardship, Remedies for Discrimination
Anti Discrimination Law Employment Law Human Rights Law Disability Discrimination Discrimination in Work Inherent Requirements of Employment Unjustifiable Hardship Remedies for Discrimination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kirstie Lonie

Applicant

LiveBetter Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Complaint of Disability Discrimination in Employment / Principal Judgment Final Determination of Liability and Partial Remedy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did LiveBetter discriminate against Ms Lonie on the ground of disability in not offering her employment as a Disability Support Worker?
  2. 2 Was LiveBetter entitled to rely on the exception in s49D(4) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) that Ms Lonie was unable to carry out the inherent requirements or would impose unjustifiable hardship if services/facilities were provided?
  3. 3 What remedies should be awarded for substantiated discrimination?

Ratio Decidendi

LiveBetter discriminated against Ms Lonie by not offering her employment as a Disability Support Worker on the ground of her disabilities. The evidence did not establish that Ms Lonie was unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the role, nor that provision of services or facilities would impose unjustifiable hardship, as required under s49D(4) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The defence relied upon was not substantiated, and Ms Lonie’s complaint was upheld.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated - discrimination found

Orders

  • The complaint is substantiated.
  • The respondent is to pay the applicant $10 000 for general damages within 28 days of the date of this order.