Under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), where a person's inability to communicate by conventional speech is a 'characteristic' of their hearing impairment within s 8, the comparator for the s 10 direct discrimination analysis must be a person without the impairment and without the communication difficulty. The characteristic cannot be treated as a 'circumstance' in the s 10 comparison, as this would render the s 8 proscription ineffective. Purvis v New South Wales is distinguishable because the DDA contained no equivalent of s 8 of the ADA.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.