LEY and DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The case of Ley v Director General of the Department of Education involved a dispute concerning discrimination on the basis of impairment in the employment context. Mrs Ley alleged that she was not offered a temporary position at a new school due to her impairment, while another teacher who was filling in for her was offered such a position. The case was heard by the Australian Human Rights Commission and involved an examination of the principles of direct discrimination and the standard of proof required in discrimination cases.

The central legal issue in this case was whether Mrs Ley had been directly discriminated against on the basis of her impairment, as per the definition in Waters v Public Transport Corporation. The court needed to determine the correct comparator against which Mrs Ley's treatment should be assessed and whether the department had acted in a less favourable manner towards her compared to another teacher in similar circumstances.

The court's reasoning hinged on the identification of the appropriate comparator. It found that the correct comparator was the teacher who was filling in for Mrs Ley, rather than other teachers in the department. The court concluded that Mrs Ley had not been directly discriminated against because she had not been treated in a less favourable manner than the comparator. The court applied the Briginshaw standard of proof, requiring an 'actual persuasion' of the facts alleged, but noted that this standard might not be suitable for discrimination cases. Ultimately, the court found that Mrs Ley had not met her burden of proof to establish her discrimination claim.

The final orders of the court were that Mrs Ley's complaint of discrimination was dismissed. The department was not found to have contravened the relevant anti-discrimination legislation.