Hollmann v The Act Government (As Represented BY Act Health Directorate, CBR Health Services) (Discrimination)

In the case of Hollmann v The Act Government (As Represented BY Act Health Directorate, CBR Health Services), the applicant, Mr Hollmann, alleged disability discrimination and victimisation in relation to the provision of COVID-19 testing and vaccination services in the ACT. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the respondent had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Hollmann, who is confined to a wheelchair, and if so, what remedies should be ordered. The respondent did not directly challenge the evidence presented by the applicant, arguing instead that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the respondent had discriminated against Mr Hollmann in providing access to COVID-19 vaccination and testing facilities, and if the respondent's conduct constituted victimisation. The Tribunal considered the applicant's difficulties in accessing the vaccination services and the accessibility of the facilities provided by the respondent. The Tribunal found that the applicant's inability to access the Access and Sensory Clinic, which was the only clinic offering the Pfizer vaccine at the time, was due to the restrictions placed by the Australia Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) on mixing vaccine types. The Tribunal also considered the accessibility of the vaccination clinic at Bruce and the information provided to the applicant regarding its location. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had not unlawfully discriminated against the applicant in the provision of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine, as there was insufficient evidence that the respondent had failed to provide sufficient information about the location of the Bruce vaccination clinic.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully discriminated against the applicant in providing access to the Access and Sensory Clinic, which was specifically adapted for people with physical and cognitive disabilities. The Tribunal determined that the respondent's failure to provide Mr Hollmann with a vaccine type that was accessible to him due to his disability constituted indirect discrimination. The Tribunal also found that the respondent's conduct constituted victimisation, as it was reasonable to infer that the applicant's attempts to obtain a vaccine were adversely affected by his previous complaint about the accessibility of the Access and Sensory Clinic. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $5,000 by way of compensation.

In summary, the Tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully discriminated against the applicant in providing access to the Access and Sensory Clinic and had victimised the applicant in relation to his attempts to obtain a vaccine. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $5,000 in compensation.