Resources: Blogs

The fine cut

Blogs
|

Small Business Employers and Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Small businesses have a litany of rules, regulations and red tape they are required to comply with, including registration and tax compliance, employee minimum entitlements, fair trading, work health and safety and privacy obligations.

Small businesses have a litany of rules, regulations and red tape they are required to comply with, including registration and tax compliance, employee minimum entitlements, fair trading, work health and safety and privacy obligations.

Small businesses are also subject to anti-discrimination legislation which prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of a protected attribute. Australia’s federal anti-discrimination legislation prevents discrimination on the basis of:

  • Sex under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SD Act);
  • Age under the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth);
  • Disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth); and
  • Race under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

These complex areas of anti-discrimination law are often overlooked even though non-compliance can lead to serious legal and reputational risks.

For example, earlier this year, it was reported that a sex discrimination complaint was lodged against a suburban barbershop for refusing to cut a girl’s hair. The barbershop owner refused on the basis that he was not trained to cut women’s hair and was only trained to cut men’s hair. The complaint was made to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) on the basis that the barber shop had breached the SD Act.

Discrimination under the SD Act

The SD Act specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, relationship status, pregnancy, breastfeeding and family responsibilities.

Under the SD Act, discrimination on the basis of sex occurs when a person is treated less favourably than another person of a different sex would be treated in the same (or not materially different) circumstances.

The SD Act applies in relation to areas of public life including employment, education, the provision of goods, services and facilities and providing accommodation.

Exemptions

Exemptions from the operation of the SD Act are also available.

For instance, it will not be unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex in employment where there is a “genuine occupational qualification” requirement. This includes staffing for fitting rooms and where the duties of a position will include conducting clothing or body searches. Section 32 of the SD Act also provides that it will not be unlawful to discriminate where services are only capable of being provided to members of one sex, for example, for health conditions.

An organisation may also apply to the AHRC for a temporary exemption. The exemption may be granted by the AHRC and has the effect of allowing certain actions not to be unlawful. For example, an organisation may apply for an exemption where it wishes to provide certain services such as male or female-only health clinics.

Lessons for employers

The barbershop matter settled last month and the owner was required to make a public statement that he would cut hair of any gender person if it was within his capabilities.

For small business employers, it is important that they are aware of the requirements of anti-discrimination legislation which apply to both employment and with the provision of services to customers and the possible consequences including complaints and payment of damages for breaches.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Court finds sole director failed to exercise due diligence in fatality prosecution

The Model Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) imposes a positive duty on officers to exercise due diligence to ensure the person conducting a business or undertaking complies with its work health and safety duties and obligations.

Read more...

Managing ill and injured workers

In her usual entertaining and informative style, our Managing Director and Principal, Athena Koelmeyer, will guide employers through the tangled web of legislative obligations they face when dealing with an ill or injured employee.

Read more...

Employer ordered to pay damages for unlawful discrimination of employee with breastfeeding responsibilities

Let’s assess the damage

In October 2023, we reported on a decision of the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal that found an employer had unlawfully discriminated against an employee because of her breastfeeding responsibilities. The Tribunal has now handed down its decision in relation to the remedies flowing from that contravention.

Read more...

Employee who refused drug and alcohol test unfairly dismissed

Guilty by association

Employees have a duty to comply with their employer’s lawful and reasonable directions made under certain workplace policies. However, if an employer fails to apply their policies fairly, then the direction may be found not to be reasonable or lawful and any subsequent disciplinary action for non-compliance with that direction may found to be unfair.

Read more...

FWC finds refusal of flexible working request did not force employee to resign

Bend or break

For an employee to bring a general protections claim involving dismissal, they must be able to demonstrate that they were “dismissed” from their employment within the meaning of section 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Read more...

High Court rules on scope of inquiry of redeployment within an employers enterprise

That’s not how this works

In “Where does it end?” we looked at the decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2024] FCAFC 45. In that decision, the Full Federal Court refused an application from an employer seeking orders to quash previous decisions and compel the Fair Work Commission from further dealing with unfair dismissal applications lodged by employees who had been made redundant.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.

Subscribe

* indicates required