Tafao v State of Queensland

The case of Tafao v State of Queensland was before the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Appeal Panel. The applicant, Tafao, challenged the decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal which had found that there was no discrimination against him on the basis of gender identity. Tafao alleged that the use of male pronouns to refer to him by three respondents, who are agents of the State of Queensland, constituted indirect discrimination. The appeal panel had to determine whether the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the complaint was correct.

The primary issue before the appeal panel was whether the use of male pronouns to refer to Tafao constituted unlawful indirect discrimination. The appeal panel also needed to consider whether the Tribunal erred in law by dismissing the complaint that the imposition of internal management plans was discriminatory. The respondents argued that the use of male pronouns was not discriminatory and that the Tribunal's findings were correct.

The appeal panel found that the Tribunal had erred in law by dismissing the complaint that the use of male pronouns constituted indirect discrimination. The panel held that the use of male pronouns to refer to Tafao was a form of gender-based discrimination, which was prohibited under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The appeal panel found that the respondents had failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the discriminatory impact of their actions, and that the use of male pronouns had a discriminatory effect on Tafao. The appeal panel also found that the Tribunal had not adequately considered the impact of the internal management plans on Tafao. The appeal panel set aside the Tribunal's decision and declared that the respondents were jointly and severally liable for unlawful indirect discrimination.

The appeal panel further directed that the respondents must make a private apology to Tafao in relation to the use of male pronouns. The appeal panel also directed that the parties must file their submissions as to costs by specific dates. The appeal panel directed that any application for costs would be heard and determined on the papers, unless otherwise ordered.