Phillips v Australian Capital Territory

The matter before the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) was a complaint of discrimination by the applicant, Mr Phillips, against the respondent, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The ACT was alleged to have indirectly discriminated against Mr Phillips, who was receiving workers compensation from the respondent or its agent, by imposing a condition or requirement that had the effect of disadvantaging the complainant because of his protected attribute. The respondent's handling of Mr Phillips' workers compensation claim for a mental injury was the subject of the complaint.

The central legal issues in this case were whether workers' compensation was sufficiently closely associated with employment to fall within the definition of 'protected attribute' under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT), and whether the respondent's actions constituted indirect discrimination. Further, the court needed to determine if the respondent had imposed a condition or requirement that had the effect of disadvantaging the complainant due to his protected attribute, and whether that condition or requirement was reasonable.

The Tribunal found that workers' compensation was sufficiently closely associated with employment to be considered a protected attribute. The Tribunal held that the respondent had imposed a condition or requirement through its handling of Mr Phillips' claim, which had the effect of disadvantaging him because of his mental injury. The Tribunal concluded that the disadvantage was caused by the complainant's protected attribute and that the condition or requirement was not reasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the respondent had committed an unlawful act by indirectly discriminating against Mr Phillips.

In light of these findings, the Tribunal ordered the ACT to provide training to staff dealing with injured workers with a mental injury and to institute improved procedures for dealing with mental injuries. The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay Mr Phillips $9,000 by way of general damages. There was no order as to costs or interest.