Gordon v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 603

Gordon v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 603

The respondent treated the applicant less favourably because it withdrew his employment after imputing to him a serious level of hypertension, which was a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The applicant had already commenced work and was an employee who was dismissed within s 15(2)(c). For s 15(4), the relevant disability was the imputed disability assessed objectively in light of circumstances reasonably apparent at the time. Although frequent and sometimes substantial driving was an inherent requirement of the ongoing GST Field Officer employment, the 16 week induction period involved much less travel and virtually no need for the applicant to drive alone....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination Proceeding Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (cth) and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (cth) / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in part; unlawful discrimination declared; compensation and interest awarded; reinstatement, house purchase compensation and future salary/superannuation loss refused.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'imputed Disability' 'hypertension' 'white Coat Syndrome' 'dismissal' 'inherent Requirements of Employment' 'reinstatement' 'compensation' 'interest']
['discrimination Law' 'employment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'imputed Disability' 'hypertension' 'white Coat Syndrome' 'dismissal' 'inherent Requirements of Employment' 'reinstatement' 'compensation' 'interest']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Disability Discrimination Proceeding Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (cth) and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (cth) / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the ground of disability within the meaning of s 5(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant was an employee and was dismissed within the meaning of s 15(2)(c) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).' "Whether, for the s 15(4) defence, the relevant criterion was the applicant's actual disability or imputed disability." 'What were the inherent requirements of the particular employment as a GST Field Officer in Launceston.' 'Whether the applicant, because of his imputed hypertension, would be unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the particular employment.' 'What relief, including reinstatement, compensation, damages for mental anguish, interest and costs, should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent treated the applicant less favourably because it withdrew his employment after imputing to him a serious level of hypertension, which was a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The applicant had already commenced work and was an employee who was dismissed within s 15(2)(c). For s 15(4), the relevant disability was the imputed disability assessed objectively in light of circumstances reasonably apparent at the time. Although frequent and sometimes substantial driving was an inherent requirement of the ongoing GST Field Officer employment, the 16 week induction period involved much less travel and virtually no need for the applicant to drive alone....

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; unlawful discrimination declared; compensation and interest awarded; reinstatement, house purchase compensation and future salary/superannuation loss refused.

Orders

  • ['In dismissing the applicant on 8 May 2003, the respondent committed unlawful discrimination.' 'There be judgment for the applicant against the respondent in the sum of $121,762.' 'Submissions as to costs be filed and served by the applicant within seven days of delivery of judgment and by the respondent seven days...