Anters v D G Thompson Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAD 109

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Anters v D G Thompson Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAD 109 Hearing dates: 14 October 2022 and 13 December 2022, last submission received on 31 March 2023 Date of orders: 10 May 2023 Decision date: 10 May 2023 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: L Andelman, Senior Member Dr M Murray, General Member Decision: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The application for costs is dismissed. Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – on the ground of a person's sex – employment – direct discrimination – prospective employee Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: Purvis v State of New South Wales [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92 Tu v University of Sydney (No 2) [2002] NSWADTAP 25 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dawn Anters (Applicant) D G Thompson Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Self-represented (Applicant) Petrine Costigan Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/00060593 Publication restriction: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. Mr Anters, the applicant, claimed before Anti-Discrimination NSW that D G Thompson Pty Ltd (DGT), the respondent failed to employ him because of his sex and marital status in contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act). At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal was informed by Mr Anters that his claim is in regard to direct sex discrimination as to being offered employment: s24(1)(a) and s25(1)(b) of the Act. 2. We understand these facts to be uncontentious: 1. Mr Anters saw a job advertisement on Seek in February 2021 for a Costs Solicitor with DGT Costs Lawyers. The position was full time based in Sydney CBD, Inner West & Eastern Suburbs. 2. The advertisement described the firm as 'dynamic boutique law firm specialising in all aspects of legal costs law and practice with officers in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra.' The candidate was required to work autonomously with direct supervision. Litigation experience was deemed essential. An email link was provided on the job advertisement instructing that the candidate was to email through a CV and a cover letter. 3. On 10 February 2022, Mr Anters sent an email to Ms Ryan attaching a cover letter and a CV. The email was signed as Dawn Anters. 4. On 15 February 2022, Ms Ryan responded via email 'Hello Dawn, I just noticed that you reside in South Australia. Is this correct? We are Sydney and Brisbane based. 5. Later on the same day, Mr Anters responded to Ms Ryan via email: 'Hello Tara. You are correct. I am in South Australia. I have noted that DGT is in Brisbane and Sydney and I am happy to move if the position is permanent full time….' 6. Mr Anters attended an interview that was conducted via Zoom on 22 February 2022 with Ms Ryan and Ms Rosati. Mr Anters was wearing a suit. 7. Two other candidates were interviewed for the role. Both were female. Both candidates were offered roles. One of the candidates decided to not accept the offer. 8. There were no set questions at the interviews and there was no formal ranking of candidates. 9. On 12 March 2021 Ms Ryan sent an email to Mr Anters: 'Good afternoon Dawn. Thank you for your interest in the position and for taking the time to interview with myself and Kerrie. Unfortunately we are unable to offer you a position at this time. We were inundated with many very high quality applicants, yourself included, making our decision extremely difficult….'. 10. On 29 July 2021 Mr Anters sent a letter to Ms Rosati. The letter asserted that he felt like he was discriminated against on the basis of his gender because of the questions he was asked during the job interview and the fact that the website showed that all of the solicitors were female. 11. On 10 August 2021 Petrine Costigan Lawyers responded to Mr Anters' letter denying that the decision to not employ him was based on his gender, denying that reference to family was discriminatory and contesting that there was reference to 'workplace policies' during the interview. 1. For the reasons below the Tribunal has decided to dismiss Mr Anters' complaint.