The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission is intervening in the Arora v Melton Christian College case currently before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Berry Street Victoria applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an exemption under section 89 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. The application sought to allow Berry Street to discriminate by employing women only in its Northern Family Violence Services (the conduct).

This case concerned a developer (the Applicant) who sought declarations from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that two agreements it made with the Cardinia City Council under s 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the issuing of a planning permit, each restricting ownership and/or occupation of land in Gembrook to people over 55 years of age, amounted to age discrimination under sections 50 and 52 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

The Applicant made an application for an exemption under section 89 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to permit the Harkaway Public Hall Committee of Management to discriminate on the basis of age in relation to accepting applications to hire the hall.

Judo Victoria Inc. applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an exemption under section 89 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. The application sought to allow Judo Victoria to discriminate on the basis of age in its black belt ("Dan") gradings policy.

The Commission intervened in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) matter of Waite Group. Waite Group sought an exemption or a declaration of a special measure under section 12 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to enable it to advertise for and recommend as candidates only women for specific roles for the purposes of assisting their clients to meet their diversity goals.

The application made by Bowls Victoria related to conducting single gender lawn bowls events held at club, division, region and state level, including for competitors under 18, 25 and 60 years of age, and bowlers with a disability.

This was a case of sexual harassment in the workplace by an employer. VCAT made a finding on 10 July 2015 that the employee's complaint of sexual harassment by her employer was proven in contravention of ss 92 and 93 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

This case was a claim of indirect discrimination in education on the basis of disability, under both the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (EOA 1995) and the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EOA 2010), and raises an educational authority's obligation to make reasonable adjustments for a student with a disability under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

This was a case involving a former employee of DHS claiming discrimination.

Page 1 of 3
Lodge a complaint with us
Chat live with us now
Subscribe to our eBulletin