Paramasivam v Jureszek

[2001] FCA 704

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Paramasivam v Jureszek [2001] FCA 704

HUMAN RIGHTS – racial discrimination – probative value of other complaints found to be unjustified

Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) ss 9, 13 and 15

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v MILENA JURESZEK
N 28 OF 2001

GYLES J
SYDNEY
12 JUNE 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 28  OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT
AND:	MILENA JURESZEK RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 JUNE 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 28  OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT
AND:	MILENA JURESZEK RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	12 JUNE 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are proceedings brought pursuant to s 46PO of the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) claiming breach of ss 9, 13 and 15 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and Article 5 of the Schedule thereto. The applicant describes herself as of Indian/Sri Lankan origin.

2. On or about 7 February 2000 the applicant was placed as a casual worker with Health Services Australia Limited (“HSA”) by an agency known as Jocellin Jansson & Associates.  She was engaged for what was called the “unbilled revenue project”, which was estimated to take one to two weeks to complete.  On 14 February 2000 the respondent started work at HSA as New South Wales Finance Manager and temporary Administration Manager.  She commenced at that time to supervise the applicant.

3. On 21 March 2000 the applicant prepared and circulated what was described as a “Report on Billing System”.  That report was critical of the billing system then operating at HSA and of the efforts of staff at HSA related to it.  In addition to these criticisms, the applicant provided a schedule of payments for which no bills were identified in the system for the period July 1999 to January 2000.  Shortly after that, the respondent advised the applicant that she would like the applicant to stay on at the completion of the unbilled revenue project to assist in debt collection work for HSA.  The applicant had told the respondent that she had experience in debt collection. 

4. On or about 29 March 2000 the respondent provided the applicant’s lists of unbilled revenue to other staff at HSA  so that collection of that identified revenue could commence.  The other staff found errors in the applicant’s lists and, after speaking with the respondent, those staff met with the applicant and discussed the errors.  The applicant said that the errors made by her were the result of deficiencies of the billing system, and invited those staff to speak to the respondent.  On the following day the respondent…