French -V- Sydney Turf Club [1998] NSWEOT

French -V- Sydney Turf Club [1998] NSWEOT

The Tribunal found that lifting glasses, restocking refrigerators with cans of beer and moving the cash register for cleaning were essential duties of a bar attendant, and that a normal shift required setting up and finishing work. The complainant worked a four hour shift and was not required to do those tasks because the respondent considered her injuries prevented her from doing them. In light of the complainant's disability, workers compensation material, medical certificates stating she could cope with part time activities, and the absence of a supplied medical clearance for full shifts, the respondent had not treated her less favourably or breached the relied-on provisions of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination in Employment Complaint / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; judgment in favour of the respondent.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'employment Conditions' 'reasonableness of Work Requirements' 'burden of Proof']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'employment Conditions' 'reasonableness of Work Requirements' 'burden of Proof']

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 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant in employment by refusing to employ her for a full shift of seven or eight hours and employing her only for four hours because of her disability.' 'Whether the complainant was competent to work a full bar attendant shift or only a four hour shift.' 'Whether the respondent treated the complainant less favourably contrary to s.49B(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' "Whether the respondent's requirements in respect of the complainant fell within s.49B(1)(b) or were reasonable."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that lifting glasses, restocking refrigerators with cans of beer and moving the cash register for cleaning were essential duties of a bar attendant, and that a normal shift required setting up and finishing work. The complainant worked a four hour shift and was not required to do those tasks because the respondent considered her injuries prevented her from doing them. In light of the complainant's disability, workers compensation material, medical certificates stating she could cope with part time activities, and the absence of a supplied medical clearance for full shifts, the respondent had not treated her less favourably or breached the relied-on provisions of the...

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; judgment in favour of the respondent.

Orders

  • ['The complaint is dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.']