The complainant did not appear at two kind of assistance he or she prefers or wants, scheduled hearings. The complaint was even where a disability plan exists. The word dismissed. ‘required’ in s66(d)(i) is to be interpreted objectively not subjectively. The complaint was dismissed. Paterson v TAFE SA, Lawrence Udo-Ekpo - DCCIV-14-243 Read the full judgement at: - Review of Commissioner’s decision As at 30 June, matter awaiting Tribunal hearing. Kossiedowski v Parvinder & Anor DCCIV-965 (9 September 2013) Ms Kossiedowski was employed as an assistant in a small supermarket. She claimed 2013-14 that over a short period of time, she was sexually harassed by her employer, who asked her sexually explicit questions, patted her TSANAKAS v DEPARTMENT OF FURTHER backside and deliberately brushed against her EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, SCIENCE & breasts. TECHNOLOGY [2013] SAEOT 10 (31 July 2013) She made a complaint to the Equal Mr Tsanakas alleged victimisation and Opportunity Commission which did not disability discrimination by the Department of resolve, and so the matter was referred to the Further Education, Employment, Science and Equal Opportunity Tribunal. Technology (DFEEST) which was responsible At the hearing, the Tribunal accepted for the college of Technical and Further Ms Kossiedowski’s account of the incidents, Education (TAFE). On hearing submissions and rejected Mr Parvinder’s account. It held Mr Tsanakas indicated he would no longer that there were three separate episodes of pursue his complaint of victimisation and sexual harassment and awarded damages of would continue only with his complaint of $2,400 for lost wages and $1,000 for injury to disability discrimination. feeling. The respondent applied for the matter to be At the conclusion of her judgement, Her struck out as the matter was out of time. The Honour Judge Cole issued a warning directly to Tribunal found that the complaint was out of Mr Parvinder that the conduct he engaged in time. The Tribunal did not consider that was very concerning, and that ordinarily a Mr Tsanakas’ complaint had any prospect of higher award of damages would have been success under the Act, as the Act does not ordered in that regard. Judge Cole noted, require an educational authority to provide a however, that Mr Parvinder’s financial student with a disability with precisely the
The complainant did not appear at two scheduled hearings. The complaint was dismissed. Paterson v TAFE SA, Lawrence Udo-Ekpo - DCCIV-14-243 - Review of Commissioner’s decision As at 30 June, matter awaiting Tribunal hearing. 2013-14 TSANAKAS v DEPARTMENT OF FURTHER EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY [2013] SAEOT 10 (31 July 2013) Mr Tsanakas alleged victimisation and disability discrimination by the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology (DFEEST) which was responsible for the college of Technical and Further Education (TAFE). On hearing submissions Mr Tsanakas indicated he would no longer pursue his complaint of victimisation and would continue only with his complaint of disability discrimination. The respondent applied for the matter to be struck out as the matter was out of time. The Tribunal found that the complaint was out of time. The Tribunal did not consider that Mr Tsanakas’ complaint had any prospect of success under the Act, as the Act does not require an educational authority to provide a student with a disability with precisely the kind of assistance he or she prefers or wants, even where a disability plan exists. The word ‘required’ in s66(d)(i) is to be interpreted objectively not subjectively. The complaint was dismissed. Read the full judgement at: Kossiedowski v Parvinder & Anor DCCIV-965 (9 September 2013) Ms Kossiedowski was employed as an assistant in a small supermarket. She claimed that over a short period of time, she was sexually harassed by her employer, who asked her sexually explicit questions, patted her backside and deliberately brushed against her breasts. She made a complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission which did not resolve, and so the matter was referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal. At the hearing, the Tribunal accepted Ms Kossiedowski’s account of the incidents, and rejected Mr Parvinder’s account. It held that there were three separate episodes of sexual harassment and awarded damages of $2,400 for lost wages and $1,000 for injury to feeling. At the conclusion of her judgement, Her Honour Judge Cole issued a warning directly to Mr Parvinder that the conduct he engaged in was very concerning, and that ordinarily a higher award of damages would have been ordered in that regard. Judge Cole noted, however, that Mr Parvinder’s financial