Pedrotta v Communities@Work (Discrimination)

[2022] ACAT 84

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PEDROTTA v COMMUNITIES@WORK (Discrimination) [2022] ACAT 84

DT 21/2022

Catchwords:               DISCRIMINATION – sexual discrimination – whether advice and services not provided to the applicant because of his sex – no direct evidence of sexual discrimination – whether tribunal could decide by inference that advice and services not provided because of applicant’s sex – no evidence to support the inference – application struck out as lacking in substance –use of subpoenas to compel production of documents or attendance of witnesses an abuse of process where no reasonable prospect the prospective evidence could be relevant

Legislation cited:        ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 32

Discrimination Act 1991 ss 7, 8, 20, 21
Human Rights Commission Act 2005 s 53CA

Cases cited:Applicant 202053 v Employers Mutual Limited [2022] ACAT 9

Casino Canberra Limited v Kidman [2022] ACAT 22
Choi v Secretary, Department of Justice and Communities [2022] NSWCA 170
Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564
Dunstan v Highman & Ors [2010] ACTSC 133
Errington & Anor v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2019] ACAT 47
Financial Integrity Group Pty Ltd v Scott Farmer and Bravium Pty Ltd [2009] ACTSC 143
Galovac Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory [2010] ACTSC 132
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services (NSW) [2011] NSWSC 120
Lowery v Insurance Australia Ltd (2015) 90 NSWLR 320
Purvis v New South Wales 2003] HCA 62

Tribunal:Presidential Member G McCarthy

Date of Orders:  13 October 2022

Date of Reasons for Decision:      13 October 2022

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          DT 21/2022

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN PEDROTTA
Applicant

AND:

COMMUNITIES@WORK
Respondent

TRIBUNAL:Presidential Member G McCarthy

DATE:13 October 2022

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The applicant’s application alleging unlawful discrimination is dismissed.

………………………………..
Presidential Member G McCarthy

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. In October 2021, Stephen Pedrotta (the applicant) made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission (the Commission) alleging that Communities@Work (the respondent) had discriminated against him in its provision of services to him, contrary to the Discrimination Act 1991 (the Act). The complaint was not resolved at the Commission. Consequently, at the applicant’s request, on 8 April 2022 the Commission referred the complaint to the tribunal for determination. In accordance with its practice, the tribunal treated the referral as an application for orders arising from the claimed breach of the Act (the application).

2. The applicant contended that the respondent directly discriminated against him by not providing him with services because of his sex (male) contrary to section 20(c) of the Act. In addition, he contended that the respondent directly discriminated against him by subjecting him to detriment in relation to his accommodation contrary to section 21(2)(c) of the Act.

3. After the parties had filed their documents in readiness for hearing, the respondent filed an application that the applicant’s application be struck out as frivolous…