Farmer -v- Jan James Recruiting Pty Ltd [2002] NSWADT 82

Farmer -v- Jan James Recruiting Pty Ltd [2002] NSWADT 82

The Respondent treated the Applicant less favourably than it would have treated a non-transgender applicant in the same or similar circumstances, but the Applicant did not substantiate that the less favourable treatment was on the ground that she was transgender. The Tribunal found that the Respondent's director formed and maintained an adverse view because of the Applicant's provocative and aggressive manner, perceived interpersonal unsuitability, and concerns about work history and experience, and the evidence did not establish that those matters were characteristics generally appertaining or imputed to transgender persons.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Transgender Discrimination Complaint in Work Involving an Employment Agency / Principal Matter; Tribunal Inquiry Into Two Complaints Referred by the Anti Discrimination Board
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['transgender Discrimination' 'direct Discrimination' 'less Favourable Treatment' 'employment Agency Refusal or Terms of Service' 'temporary Work Placement']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'equal Opportunity' 'employment Agency Services'] ['transgender Discrimination' 'direct Discrimination' 'less Favourable Treatment' 'employment Agency Refusal or Terms of Service' 'temporary Work Placement']

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

Transgender Discrimination Complaint in Work Involving an Employment Agency / Principal Matter; Tribunal Inquiry Into Two Complaints Referred by the Anti Discrimination Board

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Respondent treated the Applicant less favourably than a person who was not transgender in the same or similar circumstances.' 'Whether any less favourable treatment was on the ground that the Applicant was a transgender person.' 'Whether the unfavourable opinion formed by the Respondent was based on a characteristic that appertains generally to transgender persons or is generally imputed to transgender persons.' 'Whether the Respondent was an employment agency providing services within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent treated the Applicant less favourably than it would have treated a non-transgender applicant in the same or similar circumstances, but the Applicant did not substantiate that the less favourable treatment was on the ground that she was transgender. The Tribunal found that the Respondent's director formed and maintained an adverse view because of the Applicant's provocative and aggressive manner, perceived interpersonal unsuitability, and concerns about work history and experience, and the evidence did not establish that those matters were characteristics generally appertaining or imputed to transgender persons.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Complaint dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.']