Rushton v Muller

CITATION: Rushton v Muller and Anor [2012] QCAT 505

PARTIES:	Caroline Elizabeth Rushton (Applicant)
v
David Muller (First Respondent) State of Queensland (Second Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: ADL108-10

MATTER TYPE: Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE: 11 May and 15 June 2012

HEARD AT: Cairns

DECISION OF: Catherine Benson, Member

DELIVERED ON: 24 July 2012

DELIVERED AT: Gladstone

ORDERS MADE:

1.   The Application be allowed.

2.   The Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of $10,000 within 28 days.

CATCHWORDS: Direct or indirect discrimination by means of impairment in the area of employment – identifying “term” – whether requirement for applicant to undertake training reasonable in the circumstances – whether applicant suffered emotional trauma as a result – impact of previous and post emotional trauma

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Caroline Elizabeth Rushton appearing in person

RESPONDENT: Mr Spry, Counsel, instructed by Ms Cornes for First and Second Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION

Proceedings

1. The Application is brought by Mrs Rushton, who was, at all relevant times, employed by the second Respondent in an administrative capacity, at Lotus Glen Prison, Far North Queensland.

2. The first Respondent, Mr Muller, was, at all relevant times, the Applicant’s supervisor.

3. Mrs Rushton alleges she was discriminated against, directly, and/or indirectly, by Mr Muller, in that she was forced to undertake Suicide Prevention Awareness training in circumstances which were unreasonable, and where doing so, caused her to suffer emotional and psychological harm.

4. The Respondents deny that Mrs Rushton was forced into doing the training and urge that it was reasonable for her to be asked to do the training.

5. The Respondents further argue that it cannot be ascertained what, if any, emotional trauma the Applicant suffered from undertaking the training, given she has a history of mental health issues, and subsequent workplace and personal issues, unrelated to the Respondent.

6. In the event the First Respondent is found to be liable, the Second Respondent accepts vicarious liability.

Agreed Issues

1. At the relevant time, Mrs Rushton was working with Mr Muller on a particular project regarding building additions to and renovations of the prison.

2. Mrs Rushton had, at the relevant time, an attribute, being, a mental health impairment, in the form of, depression and a history of attempted suicides.

3. The Second Respondent required all employees who had contact with prisoners in the course of their duties to undertake Suicide Prevention Awareness Training.

4. On 19 January 2009 Mrs Rushton was asked, by the Second Respondent, to attend a group training session with regard to the above.

5. Mrs Rushton was informed (whether on 19 January 2009 or earlier) that the training was a requirement of her employment, and she agreed to undertake such training.

6. Mrs Rushton sought and was given permission, by the Second Respondent, on 19 January 2009, to adjourn her training, because of her impairment, to a later date.

7. On 28 April 2009 Mr Muller either demanded, or suggested, that Mrs Rushton undertake the training, alone, and online via intranet.

8. Mrs Rushton did undertake the training, on her own,…