The Australian sources of Discrimination law are two fold:
- Legislation
- Common Law/Discrimination Board or Commission Decisions
Legislation
With respect to the former, Australia has two sources of legislation: Commonwealth and State. The precise definition of what discrimination is will depend upon the act being utilised.
There are some fine distinctions between the Commonwealth and State Legilsation that must be considered. As a general rule the follwoing applies:
- Commonwealth legislation is administered by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) whereas the states are administered by various means, such as the Anti-Discrimination Board in NSW;
- Under the Commonwealth, an incident should be reported within 12 months of its occurence, whereas states are within 6 months. Generally speaking you can go back further if there are good reasons for delay, or there is a series of continuing events related to the same issues under consideration;
- The Commonwealth option is a forum in which costs can be awarded, whereas under the State systems, costs are rarely awarded (eg where a claim has been fraudulent or vexatious).
Where possible the mechanisms will encourage the parties to resolve the matter between themselves, or assist by offering mediation. Where this fails, the matter can be referred through to hearing.
The Legislation is as follows:
1. Commonwealth
The relevant act is the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (External Site)
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission administers disability complaints.
2. Australian Capital Territory
The relevant act is the Discrimination Act 1991 (External Site)
The Human Rights Commission administers disability complaints.
3. New South Wales
The relevant act is the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (External Site)
The NSW Anti-Discrimination Board administers disability complaints.
4. Northern Territory
The relevant act is the Anti Discrimination Act 2007 (External Site)
The NT Anti-Discrimination Commission administers complaints.
5. Queensland
The relevant act is the Anti Discrimination Act 1991 (External Site)
The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commssion adminsters complaints.
6. South Australia
The relevant act is the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (External Site)
The SA Equal Opportunity Commission administers complaints.
7. Tasmania
The relevant act is the Anti Discimination Act 1998 (External Site)
The Anti-Discrimination Commissioner administers complaints.
8. Victoria
The relevant act is the Equal Opportunity Commssion 1995 (External Site)
The Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission administers complains.
9. Western Australia
The relevant act is the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (External Site)
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission administers disability complaints.
Common Law Decisions
Decisions from within the various forums provide guidelines as to the interpretation of the legislation. On the issue of ME/CFS, I have found only a few specific cases on ME/CFS.
Mihelcic v Toll Tasmania (Anti Discrimination) [2007] VCAT 1312 (27 July 2007)
(From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Decisions; 27 July 2007; 35 KB)
Result: Loss for Plaintiff
Reason: Credibility of the Plaintiff was challenged
Mihelcic v Toll Transport Pty Ltd (Anti Discrimination) [2007] VCAT 667 (3 May 2007)
(From Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Decisions; 3 May 2007; 21 KB)
Result: Loss for Plaintiff
Reason: Credibility of the Plaintiff was challenged
McBride v State of Victoria (No.1) [2003] FMCA 285 (10 July 2003)
(From Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Decisions; 10 July 2003; 103 KB)
Result -
Reason -
Koppleman, Gill v Steven Moore [2000] TASADT 1 (18 December 2000)
(From Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of Tasmania; 18 December 2000; 61 KB)
Result -
Reason -
Paks v Victoria University of Technology [1997] VADT 53 (10 September 1997)
(From Victorian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Decisions; 10 September 1997; 72 KB)
Result -
Reason -
Lundbergs v Q Super [2004] QADT 12 (12 May 2004)
(From Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Queensland; 12 May 2004; 156 KB)
Result -
Reason -
Lewin v ACT Health Community Care Service [2002] ACTDT 2 (5 February 2002)
(From Discrimination Tribunal of the ACT Decisions; 5 February 2002; 46 KB)
Result - Win for Plaintiff
Reason - The Plaintiff had CFS and Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and the employer failed to provide a perfume free environment, despite being aware of the Plaintiff's issues.
Other Sources
The various sites do have the occasional reference to ME CFS complaints that were dealt with and resolved. This is covered under "Other Legal Resources"