Barake v Red and White Star Cabs Co-operative Limited trading as Maitland, Beresfield and Raymond Terrace Taxi Services
Case
•
[2011] NSWADT 222
•16 September 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Barake v Red and White Star Cabs Co-operative Limited trading as Maitland, Beresfield and Raymond Terrace Taxi Services [2011] NSWADT 222
[2011] NSWADT 222
16 September 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Barake, the applicant, lodged a complaint against Red and White Star Cabs Co-operative Limited, the respondent, alleging racial discrimination in employment. The dispute was heard by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which is a specialised tribunal with jurisdiction to hear complaints under the Anti-Discrimination Act. The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to direct and indirect discrimination by the respondent due to his race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The applicant claimed that the respondent dismissed him because of his race and that there was a policy or practice that had the effect of discriminating against him.
The tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established a prima facie case of direct or indirect discrimination. In determining this, the tribunal considered whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to show that the respondent's conduct was based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The tribunal also had to consider whether the respondent had provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the applicant's dismissal. Additionally, the tribunal had to consider whether the applicant's evidence was sufficient to establish indirect discrimination.
The tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of direct or indirect discrimination. The tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was insufficient to show that the respondent's conduct was based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The tribunal also found that the respondent had provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the applicant's dismissal. The tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was insufficient to establish indirect discrimination. However, the tribunal granted the applicant leave to amend his complaint and set out the process for doing so. The tribunal ordered that the complaint be dismissed unless the applicant filed and served an application to amend his complaint within 10 days and that the respondent file and serve any affidavits in reply within 17 days. The tribunal ordered that any application to amend be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed by the Registrar not earlier than 24 days after the date of these orders.
The tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established a prima facie case of direct or indirect discrimination. In determining this, the tribunal considered whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to show that the respondent's conduct was based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The tribunal also had to consider whether the respondent had provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the applicant's dismissal. Additionally, the tribunal had to consider whether the applicant's evidence was sufficient to establish indirect discrimination.
The tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of direct or indirect discrimination. The tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was insufficient to show that the respondent's conduct was based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The tribunal also found that the respondent had provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the applicant's dismissal. The tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was insufficient to establish indirect discrimination. However, the tribunal granted the applicant leave to amend his complaint and set out the process for doing so. The tribunal ordered that the complaint be dismissed unless the applicant filed and served an application to amend his complaint within 10 days and that the respondent file and serve any affidavits in reply within 17 days. The tribunal ordered that any application to amend be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed by the Registrar not earlier than 24 days after the date of these orders.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Anti-Discrimination Law
Legal Concepts
-
Direct Discrimination
-
Indirect Discrimination
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Whiteoak v State of New South Wales (Department of Justice and Attorney General - Corrective Services NSW) [2012] NSWADT 135
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Whiteoak v State of New South Wales (Department of Justice and Attorney General - Corrective Services NSW)
[2012] NSWADT 135
Cases Cited
17
Statutory Material Cited
2
Razaghi v Director-General, NSW Department of Health & Anor
[2002] NSWADT 4
Stanborough v Woolworths Ltd
[2005] NSWADT 203
Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd
[1999] NSWADT 73