Ask Us Archive

Do you have any questions about your rights and responsibilities in relation to discrimination, harassment or vilification?

Ask us and each fortnight we will choose one question and publish an answer on this page.

If you require a personal response, or believe that your enquiry may necesitate a more detailed answer please contact our advice line on 9281 7100 or by email on complaints@veohrc.vic.gov.au

Submit your question to Ask Us

DISCLAIMER
Please note that this service is provided solely for general information purposes. This service is not intended to provide independent legal advice. The Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria expressly disclaims any liability arising from the use of this service. If you require legal or other professional advice or assistance, you should seek the services of an appropriately qualified professional person.

Please note that confidentiality provisions in the Equal Opportunity Act prevent us from discussing the details of complaints lodged at the Commission.

If you would like to lodge a complaint or would like to discuss your enquiry in more detail, contact our Advice Line (03) 9281 7100, Country callers toll free (1800) 13 4142, TTY 9281 7110

Questions and Answers

I am studying a course at uni that requires I apply to a registration body after graduation.

I have been told (through the grapevine) not to bother applying to this registry as I have had a past criminal conviction (9 years ago) which did not entail imprisonment but a community based order and 500 hours work.

The application form for this professional registry asks if the applicant has a criminal record and asks the applicant to elaborate if the answer is yes. It does not mention if this is an automatic disqualification. Is this in any way discriminatory?

There are a number of factors that would determine if the situation you described is discriminatory. Firstly, it would be a good idea to contact the registry and find out for sure whether the fact that you have a criminal conviction prevents you from joining. If the answer is yes, you can ask for reasons why this is the case. The nature of the industry you are applying to work in, or the nature of your criminal conviction, may preclude you from working in this industry and therefore allow this registry to prevent you from joining.

Under the Equal Opportunity Act it is against the law to treat someone unfairly or less favourably on the basis of 17 personal characteristics. Criminal record is not one of the protected characteristics, so you would not be able to lodge a complaint of discrimination with Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.

However, under the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of criminal record in employment.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) is the national organisation that deals with possible breaches of these laws. It operates in a similar way to its Victorian counterpart, resolving complaints through conciliation.

You can contact HREOC on 1300 656 419 to discuss your situation and find out if these are grounds for an official complaint. HREOC has also released a set of guidelines, "On the Record", for the prevention of discrimination on the basis of criminal record in employment, which can be viewed at www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/criminalrecord/on_the_record

My partner has been a member of a martial arts club for more than three years. Recently he came home upset and concerned about the way the teacher had spoken to him - it was demeaning but did not specifically refer to any of the 17 areas of discrimination. When my partner approached the teacher to discuss the problem, the teacher was abusive and refused to give his 'blessing' (a martial arts protocol) to join another club to complete his training.

I guess the obvious solution is for my partner to find a totally new club, but it's a very specific kind of sport and his training would not be fully recognised outside these 2 clubs, within commutable distance. My partner feels he has invested considerable time and money into his club membership and considers he has been discriminated or treated harshly, and is wondering if these are grounds for making a complaint to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission?

While this certainly is a difficult situation for your partner to find himself in, for a number of reasons it is unlikely that it constitutes grounds for a formal complaint to the Commission.

First of all, although it does appear that your partner has been treated unfairly it seems to be on the basis of a personality clash or disagreement rather than because of discrimination on the basis of any of the protected characteristics contained in the Equal Opportunity Act.

If, as you say, the words spoken by the teacher do not relate to any of these personal characteristics, the Commission cannot accept a complaint based on the situation you described. However, it might be able to refer your partner to another service for help.

Whether there are grounds for a complaint also depends on the type of club your partner is a member of. Discrimination is against the law when it occurs in public life, which covers Accommodation, Clubs, Land (sales and transfers), Education, Employment, Goods and Services, and Sports.

Clubs covered by the Act include sporting, social, community service and recreational clubs that occupy crown land or receive (directly or indirectly) funding from the Victorian government or a local council. If your partner's club does not fall under any of these categories, then it is not covered by the Act and there are no grounds for complaint to the Commission.

Perhaps if the club is a member of an association or league then your partner could approach this body to discuss some ways this issue could be resolved.

I own a small family-run café in Victoria. We have patrons of all ages and walks of life, including new mothers. Recently I was asked by a guest if she could breastfeed in the cafe. I wasn't sure what to do, but I said it was okay. I am concerned that other patrons might have found it offensive. Is there a law about this kind of thing?

You did the right thing! The Equal Opportunity Act makes it against the law to discriminate against a person because they are breastfeeding. This means that you cannot treat them any less favourably than others just because they want to breastfeed. If you had forced or even asked the patron to leave the premises because she wanted to breastfeed her child, this could have been unlawful discrimination. This also applies if you had let the guest stay but insisted she did not breastfeed.

Why are these women-only gyms? Surely this is illegal?

It is against the law to discriminate on the basis of sex, as you suggest. However, the Equal Opportunity Act allows people to apply for exemptions to the Act in certain circumstances. Exemptions are orders made by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal(VCAT) that permit discrimination which would otherwise be against the law.

You are likely to find that most well known female only gyms have applied for, and been granted exemptions to the Act. These exemptions mean that the gyms can lawfully restrict gym membership and employment opportunities to females. In the past, these exemptions have been granted because VCAT believes it is consistent with the purpose of the Equal Opportunity Act in that it promotes everyone's right to equal opportunity. Women only gyms provide facilities and services so that women who would not otherwise attend gyms can get the same benefit of gym membership that other members of the community get.

If a complaint of sex discrimination was made against a female only gym it would be up to the gym to show that they had an exemption to the Act. If the gym did not have an exemption, it may be considered against the law to limit employment and membership to women only.

If a CEO refers to a female Manager of 40 years of age as a "dollybird" within earshot of peers and subordinates and, when challenged, reaffirms the comment would that constitute a breach of the Equal Opportunity Act? If so, what recourse would be available?

It appears that you believe that the manager's age and sex were the reasons for her being called a "Dollybird". The manager could lodge a complaint of age and sex discrimination if she believed that this remard was made due to these reasons. The commission would have to consider whether or not she has suffered any detriment because of the comment. Without more detailit is unclear whether such a comment would be a breach of the Act, but the manager would certainly have the right to make a complaint. Anyone who believes they have been discriminated against because of a personal characteristic protected under the Act can make a complaint to the Commission.

The Commission helps people resolve complaints by offering a complaint resolution service that is confidential, impartial, free and simple. The Commission is not a tribunal or court. We do not prosecute, make judgements for or against either side, nor can we award compensation. We help people resolve complaints by mutual agreement.

How a complaint is resolved often depends on the people involved. Outcomes may include:

an apology
financial compensation
an agreement to change or stop behaviour
an agreement to put equal opportunity policies in place
an agreement to undertake equal opportunity training

I recently applied for a job at a manufacturing company. I didn't get the job and was told that the company tries to employ people over the age of 50 because it is harder for them to find work. This seems like positive discrimination. Is it illegal?

Generally speaking, when offering employment, it is against the law to discriminate against people on the basis of their age. Any employer who favours workers of a certain age group, whether younger of older, opens themselves up to a complaint of discrimination.

In some circumstances employers wishing to limit employment to certain age groups should apply to the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for an exemption to the Equal Opportunity Act. In doing so, they would need to provide reasons for asking for an exemption. It is widely accepted that older workers face significant barriers to employment and these employers are being pro-active by targeting a disadvantaged group, offering mature aged workers better chances of getting a job.

These exemptions are decided on a case by case basis by VCAT and only apply to the companies who have sought the exemption. So while it may appear productive and favourable to help a more disadvantaged group by offering better chances of employment, this is still against the law unless an exemption has been granted.

In the circumstances you describe the company may have been granted an exemption. If it hasn't been granted an exemption then you may be able to make a complaint of discrimination on the basis of age to the Commission.

My son got sent home from school because he has a piercing in his bottom lip. I understand that the school can set uniform standards, but surely this is an unreasonable imposition on my son's right to express himself. Other students wear pendants around their necks and bracelets on their wrists, so what's the difference? Is this discrimination?

Schools do have the right to set and enforce reasonable standards of dress and behaviour, and this can include setting standards about what jewellery is acceptable. Under the Equal Opportunity Act, a dress standard is considered reasonable if the school has considered the views of the school community when setting the standard. If the school has not taken this into account, it is possible that you or your son could make a complaint of discrimination alleging that he had been discriminated against because of his 'physical features' (one of the 17 protected attributes under the Act).

Unfortunately, this is not a black and white case. As with all complaints to the Commission, the matter would be investigated before deciding whether or not the complaint should go to a conciliation conference (Find out how to make a complaint). The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, who make the final decisions in cases that are not conciliated at the Commission, has not yet decided a case about whether piercings are 'physical features' under the Act. However, the Tribunal has decided that tattoos can be 'physical features', so we might anticipate that the ruling would be the same for piercings. Until the Tribunal makes a decision on this, we cannot be sure.

What personal characteristics are protected from less favourable treatment by law in Victoria ?

The Equal Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of 17 protected attributes. The Act also prohibits sexual harassment.

Also, be aware that the Act only prohibits discrimination in certain areas of public life. These areas include employment, the provision of goods and services, education and accommodation. Again, a complete list of areas covered by the Act can be found here.

If you have a specific situation that you want to discuss, our Enquiry Line staff would be happy to help. You can call the Enquiry Line on 9281 7100 or 1800 134 142 (country callers)

There was a recent new position at my work and expressions of interest were sought from current employees. The company put two people on for the position. One person has been there a long time and the other one was a brother-in-law of a person working there. The brother-in-law has not been there very long at all. When this was brought to the attention of the company, the response was they were the only two people that the manager knew so that is why they got the job. There was a huge amount of interest for these positions but you had to know the management to get them. Is this discrimination? How can we resolve this problem?

This certainly sounds like an unfair situation. The sort of favouritism you have described is often referred to as nepotism. Although nepotism is frequenly unfair, it does not constitute unlawful discrimination. For discrimination to be unlawful there must be unfair treatment because of one of the 17 personal characteristics protected by the Equal Opportunity Act. These include your sex, age, race, religion and sexual orientation. Click here for a complete list of the protected characteristics.

A friend of mine works at a company which provides employees with a quarterly bonus of between 0-4%. The size of each bonus is based on performance review at which employees are given a score out of 100 based on a number of criteria. One of the criteria is called "attendance" for which you can earn up to 5 points (out of 100) if you take no sick/carer's leave in a quarter. You earn fewer points the more days off you take. This means that if you or your child happens to get sick and you take sick/carer's leave your bonus will be smaller. Is this discrimination based on impairment/disability or status as a carer?
If yes, would an employee have to have a permanent disability to be protected by the Act? Or would it also be discrimination against an employee who happened to get the flu and who takes sick leave?

Under the Equal Opportunity Act it is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of 17 personal characteristics including, if they are a parent, carer or have an illness, injury or disability. Discrimination can be direct or indirect and the situation you describe could amount to "indirect discrimination".

Indirect discrimination occurs when treating everybody the same way is in fact unfair and leads to discrimination. For example, an employer may impose a policy, practice or condition, such as the one you describe, and apply it equally across the whole business. However, some people may be more disadvantaged than others because they are less able to comply with the condition because of a personal characteristic such as they are a parent, carer or have a disability or impairment.

In this instance, the condition is that only people with a perfect attendance record receive maximum points towards a bonus. This would mean that people with illnesses or those who have parent or carer responsibilities may be unjustly affected because they are more likely to have to take time off work. Consequently, they would have the right to make a complaint of discrimination.

It is not necessary for the person making the complaint to have a permanent or even semi-permanent disability in order to be protected by the Equal Opportunity Act. Even an employee who was off work for one day with the flu, a headache or a cut finger could lodge a complaint with the Commission of discrimination on the basis of impairment.

Does a person have any form of redress if they feel that have been discriminated against because they have an addiction? For example, someone I know stated that he was refused painkillers when he had a broken arm on the basis that he was addict even though he had been clean for some time. He believed that this approach was cruel and that he was treated differently from someone who didn't have a history of drug usage. What do you think?

Under the Equal Opportunity Act it is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of 17 personal characteristics, one of which is 'impairment'. An impairment can include any illness or injury, loss of bodily function and mental and psychological illnesses. An addiction may be considered an impairment because it impairs the functioning of the body. People who believe they have been discriminated against on the basis of impairment can make a complaint to the Commission. Under the Act discrimination is against the law when it occurs in a number of public areas.

However in the situation described, a complaint of discrimination on the basis of impairment may not be best way to seek redress. The Equal Opportunity Act contains an exception that states that a person may discriminate if that conduct is authorised by other legislation. There is legislation that authorises medical professionals to make informed decisions about the treatment of their patients. If a complaint was made to the Commission, the respondent (person against whom the complaint was made) may argue that the exception applies.

For that reason, the matter described may be better dealt with by the Health Services Commission - Phone (03) 8601 5200 or toll free on 1800 136 066 or TTY 1300 550 275. If your friend believes that the medical professional acted improperly in refusing him appropriate medical treatment, he could contact the Health Services Commission for advice in relation to making complaints.

I was sacked from a part time cleaning job for no good reason. I took my case to the Industrial Relations Commission for unfair dismissal and had my job reinstated. The next month I was subjected to daily verbal abuse, threats and over scrutinising of my work. I received three written warnings for unsubstantiated claims of negligence in my job and again my job was terminated. I was owed $3000 in unpaid wages, which I sought to reclaim. Six months later I received a cheque from my employer for just $25. Am I now in a position to sue for harassment? If so, how do I go about it?

The Equal Opportunity Commission does not deal with lawsuits for harassment. The Commission helps people resolve complaints of discrimination, sexual harassment or racial or religious vilification by providing a free, impartial and confidential complaints process. We are not a tribunal or court so we do not prosecute, make judgements for or against either side, nor can we award compensation. The Commission can help people resolve complaints by mutual agreement.

If you are being bullied or harassed as a result of a personality clash or because of a disagreement with your employer, the Commission can not help you.

However if you have been discriminated against (including bullying and harassment) because of a personal characteristic protected under the Equal Opportunity Act you can make a complaint to the Commission. For example, if you were bullied because of your race, or harassed because you are homosexual, these situations could constitute discrimination and could be investigated by the Commission.

WorkCover deals with complaints of workplace bullying because it is an occupational health and safety issue. You can contact the WorkCover bullying helpline on 1800 136 089. Alternatively, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) bullying helpline can provide advice and assistance. They can be contacted on 1300 362 223.

I work for an agency that compiles genealogy databases for research purposes. I have noticed that in the database we often record the "race" of the person. I am concerned that it may be illegal for Victorians to store this information (ie racial profiling). Is it?

Under the Equal Opportunity Act, it is against the law to treat people less favourably because of their race. If the information you gather is not used and will not be used to treat people less favourably because of their race, there is no problem with storing this information.

However, the Act does prohibit 'discriminatory requests for information'. This means that people cannot be asked to provide personal details that relate to a personal characteristic protected under the Act if that information may be used to discriminate against them. For example a potential employer cannot ask you your age and use that information to decide whether to employ you and a real estate agent should not ask about your race when deciding whether or not to offer you a lease.

Other laws and regulations may be applicable in this situation. For example, you may wish to contact the Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner on 1300 666 444, www.privacy.vic.gov.au.

I saw the following job advertised and wondered if the advertisement was discriminatory on the basis of age?

"We need a young, self motivated person who is well presented with lots of energy and enthusiasm. We're a boutique fashion company involved in all sorts of interesting and challenging work. You'll need terrific organisational skills and the desire and ability to develop and implement marketing programs and fashion projects. The work is interesting and varied and you'll handle it all with a smile."

It is against the law to publish or display advertisements that indicate an intention to discriminate against someone on the basis of their age - or indeed any other personal characteristic protected under the Equal Opportunity Act. It is also against the law to authorise someone else to publish or display such advertisements.

The Commission may take action against discriminatory advertising. Allegations of discriminatory advertising can be made by writing to: Manager, Legal, policy and systemic issues branch, Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria, 3/380 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne 3000. The Commission will then decide what action, if any, that it will take against the employer and the publisher.

Discriminatory advertisements may also lead to complaints of discrimination from members of the public. It is against the law for an employer to discriminate on the basis of age when deciding who to hire. This advertisement clearly indicates that the company is seeking a young person to fill the role. If an older person applied for the job and was unsuccessful in their application, they may have grounds for a complaint of discrimination if they believed that one of the substantial reasons for being unsuccessful was their age.

There may be people who believe that they can perform all the requirements of the job and would like to apply but feel that they cannot because of the stated intention to discriminate on the basis of age. Such people may also make a complaint of discrimination on the basis that the employer has proposed to discriminate on the basis of age.

Note that there is no definition of what constitutes an older or a young person. All you need to make a complaint of age discrimination is a reasonable belief that your age was a factor in you being treated less favourably in the recruitment process. For example, it is entirely possible for a 20 year-old person to make a complaint of age discrimination on the basis that they believe they were considered too old for the position.

Bear in mind that there are some exceptions in the Equal Opportunity Act and one may apply in this situation. For example, an employer may discriminate in determining who they offer employment to if the employer employs no more than the equivalent of five full-time staff members. This exception would not prevent an older person from lodging a complaint - often job applicants won't know how large the business is. It would be up to the employer to raise such an exception if a complaint was made against them.

I work in a family business and have been verbally abused at work by a member of my in-law family. This abuse has occurred in front of clients. I have never been threatened with physical violence, but have been subjected to verbal abuse. What can I do in this situation?

Bullying can be a serious health hazard in the workplace because it can increase the incidence of stress related illnesses. WorkCover has a bullying helpline set up to deal with just this sort of issue. You can call them on 1800 136 089.

The Equal Opportunity Commission deals with complaints of discrimination. Discrimination is when you get treated less favourably than other people because of a personal characteristic such as your race, age, sex or disability. Under the Equal Opportunity Act discrimination on the basis of a number of personal characteristics is against the law. link to attributes. This is where the line between bullying and discrimination can be a little blurred. If you are being bullied because of a personal characteristic protected under the Equal Opportunity Act, you can make a complaint of discrimination to the Equal Opportunity Commission. The fact that the bully is a family member does not affect your right to make a complaint, provided that the conduct complained of occurred in the workplace or another area of public life protected under the Equal Opportunity Act.

I have resigned from my job due to the uncomfortable feeling that I was being discriminated against.

I recently got married and went on a honeymoon. When I returned to work, I requested a performance and pay review. I was told in the review that my performance level before I got married was poor compared to my performance when I started work. Nobody had told me before my wedding that there was a problem with my performance. The company wanted me to wait another three months before getting another performance and pay review.

The company retrenched eight people while I was away and another three people resigned when I started back at work, so the stability of the company was not good. I believe that picking on my performance was just an excuse to not give me a pay raise.

Have I been discriminated against?

Marital status is one of the personal characteristics protected under the Equal Opportunity Act. That means that it is against the law for an employer to treat you less favourably than other staff because you are married, single, in a de facto relationship, divorced, separated or widowed.

However, in order to show that you have been discriminated against, you would need to show why you believe that your marital status is a substantial reason for you being treated less favourably than other employees.

If you believe that the company is treating you differently because of your marital status, then you may have a reason to make a complaint of discrimination to the Commission.

If there are other factors that have led to your employer's actions and your marital status was just incidental, then the company's treatment of you is unlikely to amount to unlawful discrimination. Sometimes businesses make redundancies or cut costs for financial reasons. This is unlikely to constitute discrimination unless the business chooses who to make redundant on the basis of a protected personal characteristic.

I was shopping with a friend and my daughter in a shopping centre recently. We had been in the centre for two-and-a-half hours when we headed off to use the toilets. A security guard stopped us and said we couldn't use the toilets because the centre was closed. The time was 9.45pm. Some sections of the centre had been closed, but a supermarket located within it trades for 24 hours a day. Do you think that it is acceptable for the centre not to provide access to toilets for shoppers?

There may be some good reasons why a shopping centre may close its toilets at night, such as issues of public health and safety.

However, it is possible that such a policy could potentially lead to indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination can occur where some sort of rule or practice (such as closing a toilet overnight) unreasonably affects people with a particular personal characteristic protected under the Equal Opportunity Act. For example, a person might have a disability or illness that means they have to use a toilet regularly.

The Equal Opportunity Commission only deals with complaints of discrimination on the basis of certain protected personal characteristics such as disability, age, sex, race or pregnancy. Click here for a full list of personal characteristics protected by law..

I live in a residential building at Docklands. I am an owner-occupier. The body corporate of the building is deciding, without the consent of 75 per cent of the owners of the building, to allow one person to have a door put on his garage space. It is impossible for all owners to have the same equal opportunity to do this. I am one of the owners that could have it done, but I feel very strongly that this is discrimination against owners that cannot.

What you are describing may well be discriminatory but it is not against the law under the Equal Opportunity Act. Only some forms of discrimination are against the law - unlawful discrimination. The Equal Opportunity Act makes it against the law to discriminate, that is, treat someone unfairly or unfavourably, because of a personal characteristic such as their age, race, sex or disability. For a full list of personal characteristics covered by the Equal Opportunity Act click here.

In the situation you describe, while it seems that the body corporate is not treating everyone equally, it is does not appear that unlawful discrimination has occurred.

Do audible smoke alarms discriminate against deaf people?

A normal smoke detector which emits an audible alarm relies on all users being able to hear it.

For deaf and hearing-impaired people, not being able to use a normal smoke detector may amount to indirect discrimination.

However a complaint of discrimination may not be the best way to achieve a positive change.

Under the Equal Opportunity Act discrimination is against the law when it occurs in the following public areas - accommodation, clubs, education, employment, goods and services, land sales or transfers and sport. In this instance it would be difficult to identify against whom a complaint should be directed.

Smoke detectors are compulsory under State Government regulations but the State is not the goods or services provider and there is a section in the Equal Opportunity Act which allows discrimination to occur in order to comply with Acts and Regulations.

An issue like this might be better handled by advocates and by lobbying Government to have the regulations changed and perhaps to allow subsidies to compensate for the high costs of strobe alarms for deaf and hearing-impaired people.

Can schools in Victoria force students to wear a dress if they are not allowed to according to their religion?

Forcing a student to dress in a way that is against their religion could amount to indirect discrimination.

Indirect discrimination occurs when treating everybody the same way is in fact unfair because it leads to discrimination. In this case while the rule for a standard dress code seems fair because it applies to everyone equally, some people may have difficulty complying with the rule because of their religious belief. However, in order to be against the law, the rule, requirement or practice needs to be unreasonable. Every complaint of indirect discrimination needs to be looked at on its merits to work out if the requirement or practice complained of is unreasonable or not.

I found this job advertisement:
"We are offering the right candidate a position within our busy business. If you are male, highly motivated and under the age of 35, please contact us by email or phone. English not essential."
Is this legal?

Discrimination on the basis of gender and age are against the law under the Equal Opportunity Act. Discrimination is treating someone unfavourably or unfairly on the basis of a personal characteristic protected under the Equal Opportunity Act such as race, marital status or disability. Click here for a list of protected personal characteristics.

The Equal Opportunity Act also makes it an offence to publish or display an advertisement that indicates that any person intends to discriminate. By placing this advertisement, the employer might be committing an offence, and therefore might be liable for a fine of up to $2000. If the advertisement was placed in a newspaper or on a website, the newspaper or website might also be liable of the offence.

A friend of mine has been asked to vacate her rental property for renovations. She is an ideal tenant, but cannot get another property to rent as she has six kids and everyone keeps knocking her back as soon as they find out how many children she has.

Under the Equal Opportunity Act it is against the law for a landlord or real estate agent to discriminate in the provision of accommodation to prospective tenants because of their parental status.

So, if your friend believes she has been discriminated against because she has children, or because of the number of children she has, she can make a complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria.

Our Complaint Officers can help people prepare a written statement of complaint. The Commission helps people resolve complaints by mutual agreement. There are a number of ways that complaints are resolved. Sometimes it is as simple as a Complaints Officer making a telephone call or through an exchange of letters explaining the matter. In many cases we try to bring together both sides to discuss the issue with the aim of finding a solution upon which everyone agrees.

In the first instance your friend might try to resolve the matter informally by talking to the real estate agents or landlords involved and pointing out her right to be treated fairly.

For more information contact our Advice Line (03) 9281 7100

Can you please advise if an organisation is required by law to have an equal opportunity committee?

No, an organisation is not required by law to have an equal opportunity committee.

However, under the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic) employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their staff. This means that if a staff member discriminates, a complaint can be made against them and the organisation.

An employer needs to demonstrate that he or she has taken reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring in the workplace. To avoid vicarious liability an employer should:

have effective policies dealing with discrimination and harassment
promote that policy
provide equal opportunity training to staff
have a defined complaint process.

I have the same job title and description as four other employees at my work. Is it discrimination that they are paid more than me? What can I do to resolve the matter?

It depends on why you are paid less than the other workers. For example if the other employees have greater skills or more experience than you, they may legitimately command a better salary.

However if you are paid less simply because of your gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other personal characteristic protected under the Equal Opportunity Act you may have grounds for a complaint of discrimination. Discrimination is treating someone unfairly because of a personal characteristic. In Victoria it is against the law to discriminate against someone because of their age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation and a range of other personal characteristics.

Click here for a full list of personal characteristics protected under the Equal Opportunity Act.

So, if you are paid less because you were a woman, for example, this may amount to unlawful discrimination.

There was an application to control the ratio of men and women at a nightclub to maintain a 50:50 gender ratio. The application was successful. What would be the position of transgender women and men?

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal recently approved an exemption to the Equal Opportunity Act to allow a nightclub to apply a 50:50 gender ratio. The exemption allows the nightclubs to effectively discriminate against men or women by preventing entry to ensure that there is an even balance of men and women in the club.

This decision should not affect the position of transgender people. Under Victorian laws a transgender person is considered to be of the gender they identify as. For example, if a club was preventing entry to men it would need to apply that restriction to transgender people who identify as male as well. So a transgender person who identified as a female would be allowed to enter the club. If the club refused entry to a transgender person who identified as female, the club would effectively be discriminating against the person on the basis of gender identity and face the possibility of a complaint to the Commission.

We are holding an event and would like to offer free entry to women on Thursday and men on Friday. Both sexes will be welcome on both days, but men will need to pay on the Thursday and women on the Friday. Would this be in breach of any discrimination laws?

It is against the law to treat someone less favourably in the provision of goods and services on the basis of their sex. On the face of it, your proposal appears reasonably neutral in that you are not refusing to provide services to anyone based on their sex, and are offering equal terms to men and women.

However you may still be leaving yourself open to a complaint of discrimination. For example if the format of the event was different on each day and a man believed that Thursday was a better day to attend then he may feel aggrieved about having to pay when a woman would be allowed free entry.

One option is applying for an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

VCAT provides exemptions for conduct that would normally be prohibited under the Equal Opportunity Act. However you would need to have valid reasons for wanting to discriminate. If you obtained an exemption, a complaint of sex discrimination could not be made against you in relation to this particular event.

I have a workmate who complained to management about his supervisor sexually harassing him. My workmate doesn't think his complaint was dealt with appropriately and has been told that the supervisor can do whatever he wants. The worst part is that this supervisor is a repeat offender, but the company has done nothing, saying they need his service and that he's been with them for a long time.
This supervisor's victims have resigned, some transferred, and the rest are fuming with anger. We feel that nothing much can be done because management is on his side. Please advise because the workers involved are not happy.

Sexual harassment is against the law. Employers have a responsibility to ensure their workplaces are free from sexual harassment. Under the Equal Opportunity Act an employer can be vicariously liable for sexual harassment unless the employer can show it took reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring. This means that someone making a complaint of sexual harassment to the Commission can make the complaint against the person who sexually harassed them as well as their manager and employer. In the circumstances you describe, it may be difficult for your employer to show it took reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment when it appears that no action was taken in response to a number of complaints against one person.

Complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination can cost employers thousands of dollars to defend. If a company is found to be vicariously liable for such conduct, it might be forced to pay compensation or take other steps that would cost the company money. Whatever the value of the supervisor's service, it may end up much cheaper in the long run for a company to ensure it has taken reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment than to be held vicariously liable for unlawful conduct.

If management has not taken action to resolve complaints of sexually harassment, staff may wish to approach their union or contact the Commission Advice Line about making a complaint. Contact the Advice Line on (03) 9281 7100, toll free on 1800 13 4142 (country callers) TTY 9281 7110 or email complaints@veohrc.vic.gov.au

If a person's sexuality is brought up by a colleague in a casual conversation with that person, is this sex discrimination or harassment? I have been indirectly asked by a co-worker if I was a lesbian. I have made a verbal complaint to one of my supervisors, but this is as far as it has gone. What can I do? What rights do I have?

Merely asking someone if they are gay in the situation you describe would not be considered discriminatory under the Equal Opportunity Act. It would be different if the question was asked in a job interview and the chances of you getting the job depended on your answer.

Under the Equal Opportunity Act discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is against the law. This means it is against the law to treat someone less favourably than other people because of their sexual orientation. If you believe that, as a result of the questions, you have been treated less favourably than others because of your sexual orientation (or perceived sexual orientation), you can make a complaint of discrimination.

However the matter may be very simply resolved by speaking to your workmate. She may not be aware that her questions are upsetting you. If you are uncomfortable raising the issue directly it might be useful to ask your supervisor or human resources manager for help.

Contact our Advice Line (03) 9281 7100 for more information about making a complaint.

I recently applied for a job in insurance administration, for which I am thoroughly qualified. The third question the interviewer asked was: "When do you intend to start a family?" I said, "Is that an interview question? Isn't it illegal to ask me that question?" She replied, "No, I just want to see how committed you are."
I feel like a second class citizen for being female, because I doubt my husband would have been asked the same question. Please tell me if this question is discriminatory.

It is against the law to ask discriminatory questions at a job interview. Under the Equal Opportunity Act, it is against the law for employers to ask job applicants for information about their parental status, marital status, age, pregnancy, religious beliefs, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or disability and refuse them a job because of their answer. In general employers are advised to stick to interview questions about the applicant's ability to do the job, not irrelevant personal information. For example: "What are your childcare arrangements?" is discriminatory, whereas "This job requires long hours and some travel. How flexible are you with regard to overtime or out of hours activity?" seeks the necessary information in a non-discriminatory way.

In the situation you described, you would be entitled to make a complaint of a discriminatory request for information because the interviewer asked you to give her information about your planned parental status. It is possible that, if you answered that you were planning to start a family, an employer might discriminate against you on this basis. You might also be able to make a complaint of sex discrimination in employment if you believe a man would not have been asked the same question.

Contact our Advice Line (03) 9281 7100 for more information about making a complaint.

I am a member of the Navy reserve. I lost out on an increment at work because of a "perception" that I "spent too much time doing Reserve work". Whilst the issue of me spending too much time doing Reserve work is incorrect, that such a perception exists may not be.
My question is: can my employer discriminate against me because I am a Reservist? Can I be moved to another position or have my conditions of employment changed to something less favourable simply because of the fact that on a number of occasions during the year I will be required to undertake Reserve service/training? Your advice would be very much appreciated.

The State Equal Opportunity Act 1995 does not make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of that employee's Reservist commitments.
However, the federal Government has enacted the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001. This legislation provides protection for reservists in an employment context. Broadly, not only does it make it mandatory for employers to release their Reservists for service, but for the training necessary to prepare them for that service. It also makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against, disadvantage or dismiss an employee or prospective employee for rendering Defence service.
This legislation is administered by the Office of Reserve Service Protection, an area within the Commonwealth Department of Defence. Reservists can lodge complaints with this Office with regards to perceived discrimination or disadvantage in their civilian employment and education. If you wish to obtain further information on this legislative scheme, you should contact the Office of Reserve Service Protection on 1800 001 696 or at www.defence.gov.au/reserves.

Can you please clarify the situation with regards to religious harassment in the workplace? When an individual purports to hold very religious ideals in a minority religious affiliation, where do colleagues of this person stand in relation to regular preaching, moralising and criticism of others' speech and behaviour? For example, when the use of the word "God" in an exclamatory sense is greeted with aggressive and hostile attacks, and when every opportunity is taken in the workplace to preach and moralise. Is there any literature you can point me towards?

It is important to respect and be sensitive to the religious views of others. However, it is equally important to respect the fact that others may have different religious beliefs, or may not be religious at all.
Equal opportunity legislation provides that it is unlawful for an employee to be treated less favourably than others in the workplace on the basis of that employee's religious belief or activity. Religious belief or activity is defined to include holding a lawful religious belief or engaging in a lawful religious activity. It also includes not holding a lawful religious belief, or not engaging in a lawful religious activity.
Accordingly, if you consider that you have been treated less favourably by anyone in the workplace because you do not hold a certain religious belief or engage in certain behaviour, it may be possible for you to make a complaint of discrimination.
However, in making a decision whether or not to complain, it should be kept in mind that, in all probability, you will need to continue working alongside the colleague you described. It is often better for all concerned if these types of sensitive issues can be addressed without the need for a formal complaint, and resolved through a constructive dialogue (whether assisted by management or not).
Information on discrimination on the basis of religious belief or activity is available on the Commission's website.

I have recently been told I will be made redundant early next year along with approximately 90 other people from all areas of the business. Although the redundancy package is quite good (four weeks pay for each year of service), there is a company policy which states that staff employees' packages are capped at 60 weeks while all other employees have uncapped packages, as well as sick leave entitlements paid out. Accumulated sick pay for staff is not paid out. The people this effects are a small number of long term employees with service ranging from 20 to 36 years, so you can see the capping has a significant impact on their package. Is this discrimination?

Technically your employer is "discriminating" because it is treating groups of employees differently. But this will only amount to unlawful discrimination if the distinction is made on the basis of employees' protected attributes (such as by age, gender or race, for example). It might not be unlawful, for example, for an employer to give differing entitlements to staff in its head office compared with staff onsite around the State.
However, this sort of policy may indirectly unlawfully discriminate against employees. Indirect discrimination occurs when a requirement, condition or practice that may not appear unfair, in fact unreasonably discriminates against people on the basis of a particular characteristic. This might occur where, in the example given above, the vast majority of head office staff are female, whereas the vast majority of onsite workers are male. Such a policy might indirectly discriminate on the basis of sex.
In your circumstances, if for one reason or another staff employees are generally older, for example, than non-staff employees, it is possible that your employer's redundancy package might indirectly discriminate on the basis of age.
If you want more information you can contact our confidential Advice Line on (03) 9281 7100. Our Complaints Officers can advise you of your rights, help you make a complaint if appropriate, or refer to another agency if required.

I belong to a lawn bowls club that has a secret ballot process for both new members and life members. That is, after a nomination process the committee members write on a piece of paper either "yes" or "no". A scrutineer is appointed and counts the votes. If there is more than one "no", the nomination is unsuccessful. The person is informed of the result by mail and or by phone call. No reason for unsuccessful nominations is given. This process is written into the club's constitution. The club is on crown land, and is provided direct governmental funding. Is this practice unlawful? I feel the practice could lead to discrimination. "Black-balling" selection processes are medieval and I believe are not really part of a democracy.

Firstly, if a club is on crown land and/or receives governmental funding, it is not a private club and is, therefore, covered by anti-discrimination law.
A secret ballot process is not, in itself, unlawful. As well, it is not necessarily discriminatory to decline to provide reasons for unsuccessful nominations. However, such a lack of transparency can potentially create problems. Firstly, a voting club member may feel that, because they don't need to give reasons, they are free to discriminate. They are not. Less favourable treatment of a person because of a protected attribute is unlawful.
Secondly, if no reasons are given then anyone whose nomination is unsuccessful may, rightly or wrongly, believe that they have been discriminated against and make a complaint as a result. It would then cost the club time and money to defend the complaint.
It should be noted that, if a person believed that they were discriminated against, even if no reasons were given as to why that person's nomination was refused, he or she could still succeed with a complaint if it could reasonably be inferred that the basis for the unsuccessful nomination could have been discriminatory.

I think I once missed out on a job because I lived a long way from the workplace. I then moved, but could not reapply for the position as the next advertisement said "previous applicants need not apply". Is it a form of discrimination for companies to say this?

It is a form of discrimination, but it is not unlawful discrimination. Discrimination is only unlawful when it is based on certain attributes a person possesses, such as race, sex, age and disability. You can find a full list of these attributes at the link given below.
There would be nothing to prevent you, however, from discussing your circumstances with the employer. By making a decision that previous applicants need not apply, the employer may be wishing to reduce time and effort evaluating applicants previously deemed unsuccessful. But, by doing so it may be missing out on available talent. If the only reason you were unsuccessful in the past was your previously unsuitable geographical location, the company might be quite happy to take your new application. However, this would be a matter for the company's judgment and not for anti-discrimination law.

My question is about my daughter who is 17 years of age, and working in a restaurant as a casual worker on weekends. She has been sexually harassed by a male co-worker. The harassment has been going on for a year now. Management first gave him a warning a year ago, but he is still doing it. I want to know what my daughter's rights are. She wants to keep working at the same place. I want to know what the responsibilities are of the owner and manager in regards to this. What sort of action should they take? What sort of action should my daughter take?

Your daughter has a right to work in an environment that is free from sexual harassment and discrimination, and her employer has responsibilities to ensure that this is the case. Clearly, if a person sexually harasses another in the workplace, action can be taken against that person. That person's employer can also be held to be vicariously liable for the sexual harassment unless it can show that it had taken reasonable steps to prevent such misconduct occurring.
Generally, to avoid vicarious liability an employer:

needs to have effective policies dealing with discrimination and harassment,
needs to appropriately promote that policy,
should provide training to its staff and management, and
should have a defined complaint process.

Specifically, in circumstances such as these, an employer should follow up with the alleged victim, monitor the situation, and take further action where required. This may involve disciplinary action, training, or other practical steps such as separating the parties in the workplace.
Furthermore, if it can be shown that an employer knew an employee was being repeatedly sexually harassed, but continued nevertheless to place that person in a position where they were vulnerable to such harassment, the employer could also be found to have authorised or assisted the sexual harassment. Authorising or assisting discrimination or sexual harassment is against the law.
Where a person considers that they have been sexually harassed in the workplace, often the best course of action is to first approach management to make a formal or informal complaint. It sounds as if your daughter has already done this. If internal management of the issue proves to be ineffective, it may be necessary for a complaint to be made to the Commission.

What procedures should an organisation instigate if there is a suspected case of workplace harassment accompanied by unofficial complaints by staff?

This can be a very difficult situation, particularly if the person being harassed does not wish to make a formal complaint. Many organisations face a similar problem at some time, and because every situation is unique, there is no simple answer that suits everyone. It is very difficult to resolve an issue if the person who is allegedly being harassed is reluctant to come forward.
Generally, there are four options that an organisation can take to resolve harassment or discrimination informally, and these are briefly outlined below. It is very important that the employer talks to the person allegedly harassed about how they want to resolve their issues. The person who believes they have been harassed should choose the option (or combination of options) that is the most appropriate for him or her.

1. Self-management
With appropriate support, a workplace can help an employee to self-manage a problem. This can be an effective option where sexual harassment, discrimination or other offensive behaviour in the workplace is caused by ignorance or insensitivity rather than malice. To be successful, the person who believes they have been harassed needs to be able to communicate calmly and constructively and focus on resolving the problem. The alleged harasser needs to be willing to listen, take responsibility for their behaviour and agree to take action to resolve the matter.

2. Informal internal process
If self-management is not an option and the person allegedly being harassed does not want to make a formal complaint, the employer could try an informal process.
For example:

a manager might deal with the issues indirectly by organising staff training for everyone on discrimination and harassment. This can remind staff of their obligations, without identifying any specific problem.
A manager who is aware of staff concerns might place themselves in a position where they happen to observe the inappropriate behaviour, and can then intervene directly without it appearing as though the victim has 'dobbed'.
A manager might call a mediation meeting between the people involved or negotiate with each person individually to reach an agreement.

3. Formal internal process
Most issues can be resolved by self-management or an informal internal process. However some issues are more serious or have not resolved informally and may require a formal internal process. It is important that the procedure for handling formal internal complaints is spelt out in the organisation's equal opportunity or bullying policies. Any formal internal process needs to be sensitive, confidential, timely, impartial and consistent. There should also be an opportunity to appeal any decision made.

4. External complaint resolution
Anyone who believes they have been discriminated against or sexually harassed can contact the Commission about making a complaint. This option is available to people regardless of what other options they choose or whether there is or has been an internal complaint process.

For more information on the Commission's complaint resolution process contact our Advice Line on:
(03) 9281 7100
Country callers 1800 134 142 (free)
Email complaints@veohrc.vic.gov.au
TTY 9281 7100

I work in a metal stamping factory and have noticed that my superiors allocate different jobs to males and females. The female employees are given tasks which are easier and light, whereas the male employees are given heavier tasks, including lifting. In my opinion, female and male employees alike can perform the same tasks without difficulties. All get the same pay rate.
Is this discriminatory in nature?

It makes good sense for an organisation to pick the best person for a task or to work to the strengths of its employees - this is not necessarily discriminatory, it is good management. However, it is against the law to treat a person less favourably than another because of a protected personal characteristic, such as sex. In the circumstances you have described, there may well be strong females who could easily lift the weight required. Equally, there may be males who are not particularly strong, and who may struggle to carry out the required tasks. If anyone within your organisation felt that a policy such as the one you described was being applied unfairly or led to them being treated less favourably because of their sex, then that person could lodge a complaint with the Commission.

I have a friend who has had a male supervisor yell at her on a number of occasions. He has criticised her work performance, stalked her around the factory floor making comments to a co-worker about her, and made her feel intimidated and humiliated so that she was unable to perform her work duties. He has also brushed up against her. My friend reported this to the union and was then moved to another building. Her supervisor was only given a warning.
Since making her complaint my friend has been given a hard time, with increased work the day after she brought the union in. Her tools have been hidden and she has missed out on breaks. She has been to a psychologist and was referred back to the union. She fears going back to work and only wants a fair go.

It is important to understand why your friend's male supervisor acts in this way towards her, and what sort of things he has said. This is because equal opportunity law is concerned with people being treated less favourably than others because of a protected personal characteristic such as their sex or their age. If your friend thinks that her supervisor acts in this way because she is a woman, for example, or he says things about her physical appearance or about any other of her protected attributes, she will be able to make a complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission. If not, the conduct may still be against the law under other workplace laws.

Sexual harassment is certainly against the law and making obscene comments or brushing up against a person could amount to sexual harassment. If your friend believes her supervisor's conduct was sexual in nature and made her feel uncomfortable, she could make a complaint of sexual harassment to the Equal Opportunity Commission.

Victimisation is also against the law. This occurs where a person is treated less favourably than others because they made a complaint of discrimination or sexual harassment. It does not matter if the complaint is made to the Equal Opportunity Commission, or to an employer. If your friend has been given a hard time because of the complaint she made, she can make a complaint of victimisation to the Equal Opportunity Commission.

If your friend wants more information she can contact our confidential AdviceLine on 9281 7100. Our Complaints Officers can advise her of her rights, help her make a complaint if appropriate or refer her to another agency that can help her.

I applied for a permanent full-time job with the company I currently do temporary work for. I was unsuccessful. The person who got the job is a relative of the operations manager and did not have to take part in a formal interview process. Fellow employees have told me this is not the first time a relative of our operations manager has received a position without an interview. The other jobs were not even advertised at all. Is it a form of discrimination for the operations manager to continuously give positions and promotions to family members?

No and yes! Favouritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (such as by giving them jobs) is known as nepotism, and while nepotism is a form of discrimination it is not against equal opportunity laws. Under the Equal Opportunity Act it is against the law to discriminate against or treat someone unfairly someone because of certain personal characteristics such as age, race, sexual orientation, disability or sex, for example. Nepotism is certainly unfair, but not all types of unfairness are against the law.

read disclaimer

My child attends a state school. Recently, all members of my child's class were given new artwork materials. The class teacher refused to give my child a set of new art materials because he may be leaving the school soon. Has my child been discriminated against?

It is interesting that you say your son "may" be leaving the school soon. If there is only a very small chance he is leaving, then it would seem a little unfair for him not to be given artwork materials. If, however, there is a strong chance he is going then it might be quite reasonable for the school to make that decision. In any event, discrimination is only against the law when it occurs because of a personal characteristic covered under the Equal Opportunity Act. This includes age, race, sex or disability, for example. In the situation you described it would seem that, even if the school's decision appears unfair, it is not against the law.

read disclaimer

What type of outcomes have occurred in the past?

The Equal Opportunity Commission is not a tribunal or court. We help people resolve complaints by mutual agreement. We do not prosecute, make judgments for or against either side, nor can we award compensation. So any outcome at the Commission is one that all the people involved agree upon.

This can and does include financial compensation, but it also includes such things as an apology, reinstatement to employment, a reference or statement of service, or an undertaking that certain things will be done (such as improvements to building access). Other outcomes include an agreement to change or stop behaviour, an agreement to put equal opportunity policies in place and participation in equal opportunity training. Outcomes usually depend on what actually happened in the circumstances. One of the advantages of this process is that the people involved can have their say and negotiate for whatever it is that they believe best resolves their particular situation.

read disclaimer

My wife currently works in an industry where employees who are primary care givers for a child are allowed to work part time until the child has reached the age of three. After that, the employee must return to full time work. For my wife and I, and many others in the same situation, this not a great option as it forces us to rely on childcare for up to 10 hours a day, possibly five days a week. Many others in this industry in a similar position have been forced to resign. Is this discriminatory against those who wish to provide parental guidance for their child until they go to school?

It is possible that, if an employer doesn't adequately accommodate the parental obligations of its employees, it could be indirectly discriminating against those employees. Indirect discrimination occurs when a requirement, condition or practice that may not appear unfair, in fact discriminates against people on the basis of a personal characteristic because they are not able to comply to the same extent as other people who do not have that characteristic. In order to be unlawful, however, the requirement, condition or practice must be unreasonable.

In the situation you described, requiring employees to work full time may be a requirement that parents cannot comply with to the same extent as people who are not parents. If a complaint of discrimination on the basis of parental status was made to the Commission we would need to consider whether the requirement is reasonable. We would consider, amongst other things, the difficulty the requirement imposes on parents as well as the cost to the employer of allowing extended part-time work, and whether the particular demands of the workplace make this practical.

read disclaimer

I see it is illegal to ask in an interview for employment whether the candidate is married or single. Is it also illegal for an employer to ask about a candidate's religion and family commitments? I have been told that, because the employer in question is a private religious school, it is exempt from equal opportunity legislation. Is this accurate?

Generally, in the same way that it is against the law to ask a job applicant about whether they are married or single, it is also against the law to ask a candidate about their religion and/or family commitments. This is because a person's religious belief or activity and parental status are both protected personal characteristics under the Equal Opportunity Act. It is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of these protected characteristics. It is also against the law to ask a person for information that could be used to discriminate against them.

Private religious schools are certainly not exempt from equal opportunity laws. There is, however, a general exception that applies to them. This allows such schools to do certain things in accordance with the relevant beliefs or principles of the school's religion (including when employing staff) that might otherwise be discriminatory. For example a Catholic school may require that a religious education teacher be Catholic.

However, this does not mean a religious school can ignore issues of discrimination. The existence of an exception does not prevent a complaint being lodged with the Commission. If a complaint was lodged against a religious school, the school would have to show how the exception applies. Every situation is unique and the Commission considers every case on its individual merits.

In the situation you described, a person who applied for a job at a religious school, and was asked about their religion and family commitments, could make a complaint with the Commission. The religious school would then need to be able to show that the need to get this information, or take the information into account in making a recruitment decision, was in accordance with the principles of the school's religion. This may not be easy to do.

read disclaimer

I often notice my boss looking me up and down when he thinks I'm not watching. He tells me that I have nice legs and should wear skirts more often. This makes me feel uncomfortable. He has never touched me though. Is this sexual harassment?

Looking someone up and down, leering at them, and commenting on parts of the body could be sexual harassment. The law says that sexual harassment can be unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature if the behaviour would lead a reasonable person to experience offence, humiliation or intimidation.

Certainly, the conduct appeared to be unwelcome from your respect and could lead an objective person to conclude that you would be offended, humiliated or intimidated. Sexual harassment does not have to be physical to be against the law.

read disclaimer

When I went for a job this week, the interviewer asked me if I was married or single. I wanted to get the job, so I answered that I was married. Are they allowed to ask this?

Under the Equal Opportunity Act it is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of a number of personal characteristics such as age, race, sex or marital status. It is also against the law to ask for information that could be used to discriminate against a person. This means that it would be unlawful for an employer to ask about your marital status, your parental status or any other protected personal characteristic and then use your answer to discriminate against you.

It would appear that, in the circumstances you described, you would be entitled to lodge a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission, alleging that your employer made a discriminatory request for information. This is because your marital status is a protected attribute under the legislation. Your complaint would then be investigated by the Commission to determine whether or not it appears to have substance.

read disclaimer

I started a new job last week. Unfortunately, I got really sick with the flu, and had to have three days of my first week off on sick leave. The following Monday, I was dismissed. My boss says he is allowed to do this because my employment is subject to a three-month probationary period. Is this right?

Whether or not you are on a three-month probationary period, you would still be entitled to make a complaint of unlawful discrimination on the basis of impairment in employment with the Equal Opportunity Commission.

Discrimination on the basis of impairment, disability, illness or injury is against the law. This means you cannot treat someone unfairly because of their actual or assumed present or past disability or impairment.

Please note that confidentiality provisions in the Equal Opportunity Act prevent us from discussing the details of complaints lodged at the Commission.

If you would like to lodge a complaint or would like to discuss your enquiry in more detail, contact our Advice Line (03) 9281 7100, Country callers toll free (1800) 13 4142, TTY 9281 7110