Complainant 201931 v Australian Capital Territory (Represented BY Access Canberra) (Discrimination)

In the case of Complainant 201931 v Australian Capital Territory (Represented by Access Canberra), the complainant alleged that Access Canberra had discriminated against her based on her protected attributes. The matter was referred to the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which had previously declined to pursue the complaint. The primary focus of the case was to determine whether Access Canberra had discriminated against the complainant in their dealings from late 2017 to mid-2019. The complainant argued that once Access Canberra became aware she was taking her matter to the Human Rights Commission, their attitude towards her worsened, suggesting a causal link between her complaint and the alleged discrimination. The court was tasked with determining whether the complainant had been subject to unfavourable treatment due to her protected attributes and if such treatment was linked to her discrimination complaint.

The court considered whether the complainant had been subjected to direct or indirect discrimination and if the unfavourable treatment she experienced was caused by her protected attributes. Additionally, the court examined whether the complainant had been victimized by Access Canberra. The court found no objective evidence to support the complainant's claims of a change in attitude or behaviour by Access Canberra staff or any detriment she suffered due to her discrimination action. The court highlighted that the complainant's perception of a change in treatment was not substantiated by the evidence presented.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the complainant had not been discriminated against by Access Canberra. The court found no evidence of victimisation and rejected the complainant's references to the case of Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 as irrelevant to the discrimination action. The court found that the complainant had failed to meet the causation test required by the Discrimination and Human Rights Commission Acts. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

ORDER
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The name of the respondent is amended to "Australian Capital Territory (as represented by Access Canberra)".
2. The application is dismissed.