Mastrangeli v Girle - [2023] QIRC 175

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Mastrangeli v Girle & Anor [2023] QIRC 175
PARTIES:	Mastrangeli, Cesira (Complainant) V Girle, Andrew (First Respondent) & State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (Second Respondent)
CASE NO.:	AD/2019/78
PROCEEDING:	Referral of Complaint
DELIVERED ON:	13 June 2023
HEARING DATE:	20 April 2022
MEMBER:	Power IC
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS:	The complaint is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – allegations of discrimination – multiple attributes – whether complainant was treated less favourably than hypothetical comparator – whether a term was imposed - where complainant failed to discharge the onus of establishing the treatment amounts to unlawful direct discrimination
LEGISLATION:	Anti-discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), ss 15, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,15, 133, 166, 204, 205 Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), s 26 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), s 40
CASES:	Curran v yourtown & Anor [2019] QIRC 59 Fleming v Reid & Anor [2022] QIRC 122 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Masters Home Improvement Australia Pty Ltd v North East Solutions Pty Ltd [2017] VSCA 88 Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92 Toodayan and Toodayan v Metro South Hosptial and Health Service & Others [2023] QIRC 036
APPEARANCES:	Mr P. M. Zielinski of Counsel instructed by Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers for the Complainant. Ms C. O'Connor instructed by the State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) for the Respondents.

Reasons for Decision

Ms Cesira Mastrangeli ('the Complainant') filed a complaint alleging contraventions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ('the AD Act') by Andrew Girle ('the First Respondent') and the State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) ('the Second Respondent') (together, 'the Respondents').

The Complainant claims that she was treated less favourably than a person without her relevant attributes would have been treated in circumstances that are the same or not materially different. The Complainant also claims that a term was imposed with which a person with her attributes was unable to comply.

The attributes relied upon in the claim are the Complainant's relationship status, her parental status, family responsibilities and her association with persons who have a disability.

The Complainant filed a complaint in the then Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland ('ADCQ') alleging contraventions of the AD Act. Following an unsuccessful conciliation at the ADCQ, the matter was referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') pursuant to s 166(1)(a) of the AD Act.
The Complainant filed an Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions on 15 January 2021.

The burden of proof lies with the Complainant to satisfy the Commission, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondents directly discriminated against the Complainant in contravention of the AD Act.[1] The burden of proof lies with the Complainant to satisfy the Commission on the balance or probabilities that the Respondents imposed a term that indirectly discrimination against the Complainant. The onus shifts to the Respondent to establish that such a term was reasonable.[2]
[1] AD Act, s 204.
[2] AD Act, s 205.

Agreed…

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 Mastrangeli v Girle 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: [2023] QIRC 175
Decision Date: 13 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mastrangeli v Girle involved a dispute in which the complainant alleged that they were subjected to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of their disability, age, and sex. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The respondent, Girle, denied any discriminatory actions and maintained that the complainant's dismissal from employment was due to their unsatisfactory performance. The complainant sought to establish that their dismissal constituted unlawful direct discrimination under the relevant anti-discrimination legislation.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the complainant had demonstrated that they were treated less favourably than a hypothetical comparator who did not possess the protected attributes. Additionally, the court needed to determine if an adverse term was imposed on the complainant in a manner that amounted to direct discrimination. The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties to ascertain whether the complainant had discharged the onus of proving that the treatment they received was discriminatory and unlawful.

The court found that the complainant had not successfully demonstrated that they were treated less favourably than a hypothetical comparator, nor had they proven that an adverse term was imposed in a discriminatory manner. The court concluded that the evidence did not support the complainant's allegations of direct discrimination based on disability, age, or sex. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and the respondent's actions were deemed lawful.

The court did not make any specific orders beyond dismissing the complaint, as the primary focus was on determining the validity of the complainant's claims under the anti-discrimination legislation. The decision highlights the importance of establishing a clear and compelling case to prove direct discrimination in employment-related matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

The complaint is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.