Indirect discrimination
This occurs when there is an unreasonable rule or policy that is the same for everyone but has an unfair effect on people who have a particular attribute.
For example:
Requiring customers to enter a store using three steps is unreasonable for people who use wheelchairs and puts them at a disadvantage.
Requiring all students to make a presentation in front of the class is unreasonable for any student who has anxiety and may suffer panic attacks before speaking in front of a lot of people. This can be a disadvantage when there are other ways of assessing a student’s learning progress.
Case study 6 – Inability to achieve full potential at school can be ‘serious disadvantage’
Hurst v Queensland, 2006, Full Federal Court
Facts : Seven year old Tiahna Hurst had been Deaf since birth and used Auslan (Australian Sign Language) as her first language. Education Queensland policy required her to be taught in English (signed) without an Auslan interpreter.
Her family claimed that her education would be diminished because of this requirement. The original judge held that there was no indirect discrimination as she was able to cope with the requirement.
Decision : The Full Court held that while Tiahna may have been able to ‘cope’ with signed English, it would have likely diminished her education. It said that inability to achieve one’s full potential, in educational terms, can amount to ‘serious disadvantage’. It found that the previous judge confused the ability to cope with being disadvantaged by the requirement. The Court declared that Education Queensland had breached the Disability Discrimination Act.
Case study 7 – Olympics website and ticketing information found inaccessible
Maguire v SOCOG, 1999, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Facts : In the lead-up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, Bruce Maguire, a blind person who wanted to apply for tickets for himself and his two children, lodged a complaint against the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) for failing to provide its website and ticketing information in a format accessible to people with a vision impairment. SOCOG argued that correcting the site would cause it unjustifiable hardship.
Decision : The Commission disagreed and ordered SOCOG to upgrade its website prior to the start of the Games and provide ticketing information in Braille. After the Olympics had finished the SOCOG website was found to only be partly compliant and $20,000 damages were awarded.
