Peck v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2002] NSWADT 122

Peck v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2002] NSWADT 122

The Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Applicant by rejecting his application on the basis of the HealthQuest pre-employment health assessment without considering, as required by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, whether in a practical sense he could perform the inherent requirements of the Overseer Catering position. Regulation 7 of the Public Sector Management (General) Regulation 1988 did not displace the Respondent's anti-discrimination obligations, section 54(1)(b) did not excuse the conduct, and the Respondent failed to prove under section 49D(4) that the Applicant was unable because of his disability to carry out the inherent requirements of the position.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination in Employment Complaint / Tribunal Inquiry Into Complaint Referred by the Anti Discrimination Board; Principal Matter
Outcome
Complaint of unlawful disability discrimination substantiated; compensation awarded to the Applicant.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'direct Discrimination' 'failure to Appoint' 'pre Placement Health Assessment' 'inherent Requirements of Employment' 'statutory Authority Defence' 'compensation for Discrimination']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law' 'public Sector Employment Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'direct Discrimination' 'failure to Appoint' 'pre Placement Health Assessment' 'inherent Requirements of Employment' 'statutory Authority Defence' 'compensation 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Disability Discrimination in Employment Complaint / Tribunal Inquiry Into Complaint Referred by the Anti Discrimination Board; Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Applicant on the ground of disability by rejecting his application for the position of Overseer Catering at St. Heliers Correctional Centre.' 'Whether Regulation 7 of the Public Sector Management (General) Regulation 1988 operated as a pre-condition to appointment so that the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 did not apply.' "Whether section 54(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 rendered the Respondent's conduct lawful as an act done under statutory authority." 'Whether, for section 49D(4) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, the Applicant was unable because of his disability to carry out the inherent requirements of the position.' 'What compensation should be awarded for the unlawful discrimination.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Applicant by rejecting his application on the basis of the HealthQuest pre-employment health assessment without considering, as required by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, whether in a practical sense he could perform the inherent requirements of the Overseer Catering position. Regulation 7 of the Public Sector Management (General) Regulation 1988 did not displace the Respondent's anti-discrimination obligations, section 54(1)(b) did not excuse the conduct, and the Respondent failed to prove under section 49D(4) that the Applicant was unable because of his disability to carry out the inherent requirements of the position.

Court Disposition

Complaint of unlawful disability discrimination substantiated; compensation awarded to the Applicant.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal finds that the complaint of unlawful discrimination of the Applicant by the Respondent has been substantiated.' 'The Tribunal orders that the Respondent pay to the Applicant by way of damages for the unlawful discrimination, an amount of $40,000.00.' 'Leave is reserved for the Applicant to apply to...