The Tribunal found that the first respondent employer contravened section 19(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) by unreasonably refusing to accommodate the applicant employee's responsibilities as a carer, and ordered $2,500 in general damages; all other claims — indirect discrimination, victimisation, industrial activity discrimination, and employment activity discrimination — were dismissed or struck out. The judgment is incomplete as to the section 19(1) analysis (the published text ends mid-submission without final reasoning on reasonableness), but the orders confirm the finding. The indirect discrimination claim failed because the applicant's individual roster was not facially neutral as required by Waters v Public Transport Corporation, and the Tribunal could not identify a broader RCOP imposed on all RSAOs with sufficient precision. The victimisation claim failed because the Tribunal found no real detriment was caused or threatened by the second respondent's surveillance comments, given all staff were already subject to 24/7 CCTV monitoring, and further found that the applicant had not made an allegation within the meaning of section 104(1)(g) during the relevant conversation. The industrial activity direct discrimination claim failed on causation, as the decision to refuse the FWA request was made by senior management, not the manager whose comments were relied upon.
The full text is available to signed-in members.