Skeen v Blacktown Workers Club Ltd

The case of *Skeen v Blacktown Workers Club Ltd* concerned a dispute between a member of the respondent club and the club itself. The applicant, a member of the Blacktown Workers Club, attended a function where he had pre-ordered a gluten-free main meal and dessert. A disagreement arose regarding the provision of gluten-free gravy with his meal, which led to the applicant behaving in an angry and disruptive manner. Subsequently, the applicant engaged in further aggressive and disruptive conduct towards club staff and members on two separate occasions, including entering the premises while suspended. These incidents ultimately led to disciplinary proceedings by the club, resulting in the applicant's expulsion from membership. The matter came before Emmett J.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Blacktown Workers Club had discriminated against the applicant on the basis of his disability, contrary to the *Anti-Discrimination Act 1977* (NSW), and whether the club's decision to expel the applicant from membership was a lawful exercise of its powers. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the club had failed to provide reasonable adjustments for the applicant's disability by not providing gluten-free gravy, and if the subsequent disciplinary action and expulsion were justified by the applicant's conduct.

Emmett J reasoned that the club had, in fact, catered for the applicant's claimed disability by providing gluten-free main meals and desserts. The dispute over gravy, while a point of contention, did not establish a failure to accommodate the disability, particularly as the applicant had not explicitly requested gluten-free gravy at the time of ordering his meal for the function. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's subsequent behaviour on 18 and 21 December 2013 constituted serious misconduct that warranted disciplinary action. The club's rules permitted expulsion for such conduct, and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with those rules. Therefore, the court concluded that the club had not unlawfully discriminated against the applicant and that the expulsion was a valid consequence of his disruptive and aggressive behaviour.