SMITH and PALACE NOMINEES PTY LTD T/AS JOE CRISAFIO KIA

The applicant, Smith, who was employed by Palace Nominees Pty Ltd trading as Joe Crisafio Kia as a vehicle salesperson, brought an action against his employer for alleged direct discrimination and victimisation under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The applicant had previously suffered serious injuries at work with another employer, which included a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) triggered by events in a vehicle salesroom. The applicant alleged that his dismissal and other related acts were discriminatory because of his impairment, namely his PTSD. Additionally, the applicant claimed that he was victimised by his employer.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's PTSD was an impairment for the purposes of the Act and if the applicant's dismissal and related acts were discriminatory 'on the ground of' that impairment. The court also had to consider the extent of knowledge the employer had of the applicant's PTSD and whether the employer was entitled to form a perception of the applicant's conduct warranting dismissal. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the applicant's failure to disclose his PTSD in his job application was a valid reason for his dismissal and whether a comparable employee would have been treated similarly. Lastly, the court had to consider the validity of the applicant's victimisation claim, which overlapped with a previous claim that had been withdrawn.

The court found that the applicant's PTSD was an impairment for the purposes of the Act. However, the applicant failed to prove that his dismissal and related acts were discriminatory 'on the ground of' his impairment. The court noted that the employer was entitled to form a perception of the applicant's conduct warranting dismissal, and that a comparable employee would have been treated similarly. The court also found that the applicant's failure to disclose his PTSD was a valid reason for his dismissal. As for the victimisation claim, the court dismissed it for lack of proof. The court reserved costs because of the applicant's disruptive and unreasonable behaviour and because he made serious but unsubstantiated claims against the respondent.