HUMAN RIGHTS – Alleged discrimination – disability and sex discrimination – discrimination in employment – direct and indirect discrimination – application allowed.
[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.
Continue reading Maxworthy v Shaw
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Maxworthy v Shaw [2010] FMCA 1014
Case
[2010] FMCA 1014
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), the court orders that the respondent pay the applicant $3,394.50 as costs.
In the case of Maxworthy v Shaw, the applicant, Maxworthy, sought compensation from the respondent, Shaw, for alleged breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). The dispute arose from the respondent's actions in terminating Maxworthy's employment, which Maxworthy claimed was discriminatory based on her disability and gender. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.
The court had to determine whether Shaw's actions constituted a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, and if so, the appropriate remedies for Maxworthy. The court examined the respondent's conduct and the evidence presented to establish if the termination of employment was discriminatory and if the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments for Maxworthy's disability.
The court found that Shaw's actions were discriminatory and in breach of both acts. The court held that Shaw failed to provide reasonable adjustments for Maxworthy's disability and that the termination of employment was influenced by her gender and disability. The court awarded Maxworthy damages of $25,000 for the breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, as well as lost wages of $33,394.50. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $3,394.50 to the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The respondent to pay the applicant $25,000 as damages for breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).
2.
The respondent to pay the applicant lost wages in the amount of $33,394.50.