New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasonable accommodation

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2023

GREENSLADE v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2023] NZHC 717

Citation

[2023] NZHC 717
Court

High Court

The appellant was not 'qualified' for the Police officer role because he failed the legitimate, objectively justified typing competency (administered identically to all candidates) on three occasions; typing is a legitimate baseline requirement for the constabulary role and the Police's decision to decline the application was based on poor performance rather than discriminatory treatment by reason of dyslexia, therefore s 22 HRA was not engaged.
5 Jun 2015

HUTCHINSON v THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GREEN BAY HIGH SCHOOL [2015] NZCA 214

Citation

[2015] NZAR 1273
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed as moot because the respondent is no longer a pupil at the school, the costs issue was resolved so no live dispute remained, the High Court made no factual findings on the wider discrimination issues, and it would be inappropriate for the appellate court to address fact-intensive or novel public law issues without first instance determination and proper adversarial fact-finding.
18 Feb 2011

VALERIE JOAN SMITH v AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD CA514/2009

Citation

openlaw-ac92e102_eb44_4071_80ee_62bd34e852d4.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court found Ms Smith was treated less favourably in relation to provision of oxygen under s 44 but held Air New Zealand's measures fell within the s 52 exception because, applying a reasonableness/proportionality test, the airline could not reasonably be expected to provide oxygen without imposing more onerous terms; the international charge and domestic supplier requirements were reasonable given safety, regulatory, logistical and cost factors, and the evidence met Air New Zealand's onus.
15 Dec 2008

SMITH V AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD HC WN CIV-2005-485-2198

Citation

openlaw-a7fe2226_f2e8_418d_bd2b_45759544f4da.pdf
Court

High Court

On the facts and law the Court held Air New Zealand did not unlawfully discriminate under s 44(1)(b) because the differential treatment resulted from neutral safety-driven controls applicable to passengers requiring items that pose equivalent aviation safety risks; a proper comparator analysis must attribute relevant operational restrictions to comparators and here those safety considerations, not disability, explained the treatment. The question of s 52 was not determinative and was left undecided as it was not necessary to resolve the appeal, though the Court concurred with the Tribunal's f…
30 Jul 2008

AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD V DAVID MCALISTER CA CA216/07

Citation

openlaw-9f76c314_4779_4428_90df_cb475cb29a10.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the Employment Court adopted an incorrect comparator group; a proper comparator must reflect non-age operational restrictions (such as inability to act as PIC into restricted jurisdictions for reasons other than age), and on that basis the Employment Court erred in concluding the demotion occurred by reason of the respondent's age and the matter is remitted for reconsideration.

New Zealand Case Law

GREENSLADE v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2023] NZHC 717

HUTCHINSON v THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GREEN BAY HIGH SCHOOL [2015] NZCA 214

VALERIE JOAN SMITH v AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD CA514/2009

SMITH V AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD HC WN CIV-2005-485-2198

AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD V DAVID MCALISTER CA CA216/07