BlandsLaw - Blog posts from discrimination
Please select your page
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn

Discrimination on the basis of a criminal record

Employers are in a difficult situation when an otherwise suitable job candidate applies for a position but after pre employment screening, a criminal record surfaces and the red flag is raised. On the one hand, former offenders (just like everyone else) should be afforded equal opportunity in finding employment. Having said that, employers want to be confident that the people they hire are honest and reliable.

The number of complaints to the AHRC from people alleging employer discrimination on the basis of criminal record has skyrocketed. This indicates that further guidance is needed in this area. Importantly, employers must remember that requesting a criminal record check is only necessary if a criminal record may impact the person’s ability to perform the inherent requirements of the role.

In a recent case heard by the AHRC[1], a Data #3 employee claimed that the company discriminated against him when he was dismissed because of a ‘serious criminal record’. The employee claimed that he asked on two occasions during the interview process

Read more

Some employers already use or may be thinking about using pre-employment medical examinations to determine a job candidate’s ability to safely perform the role for which they are being considered.

This article considers a discrimination case against the backdrop of pre-employment medical examinations. In Duncan v Kembla Watertech Pty Ltd [2011] NSWADT 176, a prospective employee (ie job candidate) brought a disability discrimination claim against Kembla Watertech. The candidate, Ms Duncan, had been offered a role subject to a pre-employment medical. The doctor performing the medical found that Ms Duncan suffered from a number of medical conditions that would make it difficult for her to perform the role and that there was a high risk of injury or aggravation of other medical conditions. The employer did not proceed with Ms Duncan’s employment and advised her that she was disqualified on the basis that she was unable to perform the inherent requirements of the role.

Ms Duncan lodged a claim with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board and the matter was heard by

Read more

A recent Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) decision* highlights how easily employers may breach anti-discrimination legislation without necessarily intending to do so.

The complainant, a prospective employee, brought a claim against Woolworths because the online job application form required him to state his gender, date of birth and confirm his ability to lawfully work in Australia. Essentially the claim was that the requirement for job applicants to supply this information breached Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Act by unnecessarily requesting information during the recruitment process which could form the basis for discrimination.

Woolworth’s arguments included that the information allowed them: to recruit for positions where employees needed to be over 18 years of age; to comply with gender reporting requirements; and avoid breaching the federal immigration legislation.

Read more

With a few busy months ahead for many businesses holding work social functions and Christmas parties, it is a good time to consider the issues around drugs and alcohol in the workplace. From a legal risk management perspective, best business practice around these issues involves the implementation of workplace policies that cover not only drugs and alcohol, but also performance management, occupational health and safety, discrimination and termination. It may be useful at this time of year to remind employees what policies are in place and when these apply.

Read more

A recent tribunal decision in Queensland highlights how important it is for employers to understand the dos and don’ts of performance management. In Ram v Yes Distribution Pty Ltd and Anor[1], the employer, an Optus reseller, required a sales employee to move to their Townsville store when forced to close their Cairns store for business reasons. The catch, however, was that during discussions with the employee about this relocation the employer chose to raise performance issues as part of the discussion. The employee subsequently claimed that she had been discriminated against on the basis of family responsibilities and that her family commitments prevented her making the move from Cairns to Townsville.

Read more