Parr v The University of New England [1999] NSWADT 46

Parr v The University of New England [1999] NSWADT 46

The Tribunal rejected the University's financial-constraints explanation and found that a substantial reason for the failure to offer employment to Mr Parr was the fact that he was a homosexual. The University therefore treated him less favourably on the ground of homosexuality in determining who should be offered the advertised position, substantiating the complaint under Anti-discrimination Act 1977, s49ZH(1).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Homosexual Discrimination in Employment Under Anti Discrimination Act 1977, S49 ZH / Inquiry Into Complaint; Principal Matter
Outcome
Complaint substantiated; respondent ordered to pay the complainant $40,000.
Legal Topics
['homosexual Discrimination' 'refusal to Offer Employment' 'university Appointment Process' 'compensation']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['homosexual Discrimination' 'refusal to Offer Employment' 'university Appointment Process' 'compensation']

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

Complaint of Homosexual Discrimination in Employment Under Anti Discrimination Act 1977, S49 ZH / Inquiry Into Complaint; Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent discriminated against Mr Parr on the ground of homosexuality in determining who should be offered employment in the Department of Theatre Studies for position 481 advertised in 1995.' "Whether the respondent's stated reason for not offering Mr Parr the position, adverse financial circumstances, should be accepted." 'What compensation should be ordered for loss and damage caused by the discriminatory conduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal rejected the University's financial-constraints explanation and found that a substantial reason for the failure to offer employment to Mr Parr was the fact that he was a homosexual. The University therefore treated him less favourably on the ground of homosexuality in determining who should be offered the advertised position, substantiating the complaint under Anti-discrimination Act 1977, s49ZH(1).

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated; respondent ordered to pay the complainant $40,000.

Orders

  • ['The Respondent to pay the sum of $40,000 to the Complainant.']