State Transit Authority v Sloey & Anor [1999] NSWSC 47

State Transit Authority v Sloey & Anor [1999] NSWSC 47

The Equal Opportunity Tribunal was entitled to conclude, as a matter of common knowledge, that undergoing coronary artery graft surgery is a characteristic appertaining generally to persons suffering from blockage of a coronary artery. The employer was not entitled to certify the employee unfit to drive solely by categorisation, without individual assessment. The defence of necessity under the Anti-Discrimination Act s 54 was not established as it was not necessary for compliance with ss 15, 16 Occupational Health and Safety Act to apply standards inflexibly without individual consideration.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'statutory Defence of Necessity' 'application of Workplace Safety Guidelines']
['administrative Law' 'employment Law' 'anti Discrimination'] ['disability Discrimination' 'statutory Defence of Necessity' 'application of Workplace Safety Guidelines']

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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether treating employees by category rather than individual assessment constitutes discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977' 'Whether the Equal Opportunity Tribunal could conclude without evidence that undergoing coronary artery graft surgery is a characteristic of persons suffering from blockage of a coronary artery' 'Whether an employer who certifies employees unfit by category has a statutory defence of necessity under the Anti-Discrimination Act, considering obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983']

Ratio Decidendi

The Equal Opportunity Tribunal was entitled to conclude, as a matter of common knowledge, that undergoing coronary artery graft surgery is a characteristic appertaining generally to persons suffering from blockage of a coronary artery. The employer was not entitled to certify the employee unfit to drive solely by categorisation, without individual assessment. The defence of necessity under the Anti-Discrimination Act s 54 was not established as it was not necessary for compliance with ss 15, 16 Occupational Health and Safety Act to apply standards inflexibly without individual consideration.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff to pay first defendant's costs, in an amount to be agreed or assessed."]