Chivers v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

The case of Chivers v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) involved the appellant, who sustained a head injury from a horse riding accident in 2004. In 2008, she commenced a Graduate Nurses Program with the respondent. The program required her to work night shifts, which she was unable to do due to headaches and nausea resulting from her injury. The respondent initially accommodated her request to avoid night shifts but later extended her probation period several times, pending further medical evidence about her impairment. The appellant eventually found other employment and resigned in February 2009. She then commenced action in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), alleging direct and indirect discrimination by the respondent. The senior member found there was indirect discrimination, but the respondent appealed to the QCAT appeal tribunal. The presiding member concluded that the senior member had erred in failing to find that a section 25 exemption applied, overturning the decision of the senior member.

The legal issues in this case were whether working night shifts was a genuine occupational requirement, whether the respondent made reasonable adjustments for the appellant in accordance with the respondent’s policy, and whether working night shifts endowed the appellant with necessary clinical skills. The appeal tribunal considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the senior member had erred in failing to find that a section 25 exemption applied. The tribunal found that working night shifts was a genuine occupational requirement, and the respondent had made reasonable adjustments for the appellant in accordance with its policy. The tribunal also found that working night shifts endowed the appellant with necessary clinical skills.

The appeal tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis. The tribunal held that the respondent had not discriminated against the appellant on the grounds of her disability or impairment, as working night shifts was a genuine occupational requirement and the respondent had made reasonable adjustments for the appellant. The tribunal also found that the appellant had not been subjected to direct or indirect discrimination by the respondent. The tribunal concluded that the senior member had erred in failing to find that a section 25 exemption applied, and the decision of the senior member was overturned. The appeal was dismissed, and the costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.