Legal Research
Cases
Edoo v Minister for Health

Edoo v Minister for Health

Link copied

Case Copied 24 May 2010 75 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: HUMAN RIGHTS

ACT: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 (WA)

CITATION: EDOO and MINISTER FOR HEALTH [2010] WASAT 74

MEMBER: JUDGE J PRITCHARD (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
MR P McNAB (MEMBER)

HEARD: 19 NOVEMBER 2009
SUBMISSIONS FILED 27 NOVEMBER 2009 AND 8 DECEMBER 2009

DELIVERED : 24 MAY 2010

FILE NO/S: EOA 10 of 2009

BETWEEN: MOHAMED ISLAM EDOO
Applicant
AND
MINISTER FOR HEALTH
Respondent

Catchwords:

Unlawful discrimination on grounds of impairment - Discrimination in employment - Section 66A Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) - Impairment - Illness or condition

Legislation:

Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 4, s 5, s 66A, S 66A(1), s 66A(3), s 66B, s 66B(1), s 66B(1)(b), s 66B(2), s 66B(2)(b), s 66B(2)(c), s 66Q(2), s 89, s 90(2), s 161
Hospitals and Health Services Act 1927 (WA), s 7
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA), s 102
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32, s 32(2), s 32(2)(b), s 32(4), s 32(6), s 47, s 48

Result:

The application is dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Mr A Shuy and Ms S Teoh

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1
Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165
Biundo and Cocks Macnish [2005] WASAT 300
Boehringer Ingelheim Pty Ltd v Reddrop [1984] 2 NSWLR 13
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 67
Bukilic and Lifenet (WA) Financial Advice Pty Ltd [2008] WASAT 213
Dare v Hurley [2005] FMCA 844; (2005) EOC 93405
Ghockson v Commissioner of Police (1996) EOC 92798
Grover v Commissioner of Police [2005] WASC 263
Haines v Leves (1987) 8 NSLWR 442
Mooney v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 107
Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (2003) 217 CLR 92
Re Prezzie and Discrimination Commissioner and Quest Group Pty Ltd (1996) 39 ALD 729
The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No. 9) [2008] WASC 239
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349
Williams and Commissioner of Police [2005] WASAT 349
Zangari and St John Ambulance Service [2010] WASAT 6

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The complainant, Mr Edoo, complained that he had been unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of impairment in the area of employment while employed by the respondent as a mental health nurse at Fremantle Hospital.
The Tribunal discerned that Mr Edoo alleged that employees of the respondent committed six acts of unlawful discrimination against him in the context of his employment, contrary to s 66A and s 66B of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA). Mr Edoo alleged five acts of direct discrimination and one act of indirect discrimination by the respondent's employees. The respondent denied that his employees had engaged in…

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 Edoo v Minister for Health 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: [2010] WASAT 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edoo v Minister for Health involved a complaint by Mohamed Islam Edoo, a former mental health nurse, who alleged that he was discriminated against on the ground of impairment by the Minister for Health, who was acting in his incorporated capacity as the employer of Mr Edoo. The State Administrative Tribunal found that Mr Edoo failed to establish his claims of direct discrimination, as defined in section 66A(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), and indirect discrimination, as defined in section 66A(3) of the Act. The Tribunal found that Mr Edoo failed to establish that he suffered from an impairment as defined in the Act, failed to establish that one of the reasons why he was subjected to the alleged discriminatory conduct was because of an impairment, and failed to establish that he received less favourable treatment than the Minister would have treated a person without the impairment in the same circumstances, or circumstances which were not materially different. The Tribunal also found that Mr Edoo failed to establish his claim of indirect discrimination, because he failed to establish that he suffered from an impairment as defined in the Act, failed to establish that the imposition of a condition on Mr Edoo's employment was unreasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case, and because Mr Edoo failed to establish that he could not comply with the condition. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed Mr Edoo's complaint.

Orders