Chivers v State of Queensland - [2012] QCAT 166

CITATION:

Chivers v State of Queensland [2012] QCAT 166

PARTIES:	Rebecca Louise Chivers
v
State of Queensland

APPLICATION NUMBER:

ADL024-10

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATES:

14, 15, 16, 17,18, 21, 22, 24 and 25 November 2011

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

C Endicott, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:

10 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. State of Queensland must pay to Rebecca Louise Chivers compensation of $20,700.

2. Rebecca Louise Chivers must file written submissions on costs in the tribunal and send a copy to State of Queensland by 4pm on 27 April 2012.

3. State of Queensland must file written submissions in response on costs and send a copy to Rebecca Louise Chivers by 4pm on 11 May 2012.

CATCHWORDS:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – complaint of unlawful workplace discrimination based on impairment – where registered nurse not capable of working night shifts due to medical condition– where probationary period of employment extended – where employment not confirmed – where complaint of less favourable treatment – where complaint of term imposed that registered nurse working in 24/7 wards must be capable of working across all shifts – whether term reasonable – whether ability to work across all shifts was a genuine occupational requirement

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, ss 7(h), 10, 11, 15(1)(f), 25, 36, 108

Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic [1989] HCA 56
Rawcliffe v North Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service [2007] FMCA 931
Queensland Health v Che Forest [2008] FCAFC 96
Qantas Airways Limited v Christie (1998) 193 CLR 280
Toganivalu v Brown & Department of Corrective Services [2006] QADT 13
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Rebecca Louise Chivers represented by Ms C Ronalds AM Senior Counsel and Mr J Merrill of Counsel instructed by Slater & Gordon
RESPONDENT:	State of Queensland represented by Mr J Murdoch Senior Counsel and Mr C Murdoch of Counsel instructed by Minter Ellison

REASONS FOR DECISION

Louise Chivers achieved her goal at the end of 2007 when aged 33 she graduated from her university studies in nursing and was registered as a nurse. She commenced employment as a registered nurse with Queensland Health on 11 February 2008. She ceased that employment on 27 February 2009 when she resigned alleging that she had received less favourable treatment because of impairment arising from an acquired brain injury.
Ms Chivers has complained that the conduct of her employer amounted to direct and indirect discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 when decisions were made on three occasions to extend her probationary period rather than concluding her probation and when her employment was not confirmed because Ms Chivers could not work night shifts. Queensland Health (formally designated as State of Queensland in the proceeding but referred to as Queensland Health in these reasons) denies that the specified conduct amounts to unlawful discrimination. In order to analyse the issues raised by the parties I set out the factual context…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chivers v State of Queensland and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] QCAT 166
Decision Date: 10 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chivers v State of Queensland, the applicant, Rebecca Louise Chivers, a registered nurse, brought a complaint against the respondent, the State of Queensland, alleging unlawful workplace discrimination based on her impairment. Chivers, who had a medical condition that prevented her from working night shifts, claimed she was treated less favourably when her probationary employment period was extended and subsequently not confirmed due to her inability to work across all shifts. The central issue before the court was whether the requirement for registered nurses in 24/7 wards to be capable of working all shifts constituted a genuine occupational requirement and whether such a term was reasonable.

The court considered the nature of the role and the necessity for nurses in 24/7 wards to be available for all shifts, acknowledging the importance of maintaining adequate staffing levels to ensure patient safety and continuity of care. However, it also examined whether Chivers' impairment, which prevented her from working night shifts, constituted a genuine barrier that could not be reasonably accommodated. The court concluded that the requirement to work across all shifts was not a genuine occupational requirement and that the inability to work night shifts was a reasonable accommodation that the employer should have considered.

Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Chivers, finding that the State of Queensland had unlawfully discriminated against her. It ordered the State to pay Chivers compensation of $20,700. Additionally, the court mandated the filing of written submissions on costs by both parties, specifying deadlines for the submission and response.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. State of Queensland must pay to Rebecca Louise Chivers compensation of $20,700.

2. Rebecca Louise Chivers must file written submissions on costs in the tribunal and send a copy to State of Queensland by 4pm on 27 April 2012.

3. State of Queensland must file written submissions in response on costs and send a copy to Rebecca Louise Chivers by 4pm on 11 May 2012.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.