Madukolu v Care Metaz Global Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAD 58

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Madukolu v Care Metaz Global Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAD 58 Hearing dates: 3 February 2025 Date of orders: 10 March 2025 Decision date: 10 March 2025 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J Seymour, Principal Member Dr M Murray, General Member Decision: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – on the ground of pregnancy – on the ground of race – employment – direct discrimination – victimisation Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: FP and FQ on behalf of FR v Department of Education and Training [2003] NSWADT 68 Nicholls and Nicholls v Director General, Department of Education and Training (No 2) [2009] NSWADTAP 20 O'Callaghan v Loder and the Commissioner for Main Roads [1983] 3 NSWLR 89 Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 44 at [41] Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tobechukwu Madukolu (Applicant) Care Metaz Global Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: R Gu (Agent - A Whole New Approach) (Applicant)

Solicitors: Khan Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 2024/00238287 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. Tobechukwu Madukolu (the Applicant) is of Nigerian background. She was employed on a casual basis by Care Metaz Global Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The Respondent provides care services in Group Homes to persons with disability, referred to by the Respondent as 'participants'. The Applicant was employed on a casual basis by the Respondent as a Disability Support Worker in one of the Group Homes from January 2022 to January 2023 (the Employment). From on or around October 2022, the Applicant was pregnant with her third child and gave birth to that child in May 2023. 2. The Applicant claims she was subjected to unlawful discrimination contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the AD Act) by actions of employees of the Respondent, on two grounds: 1. her race, including her skin colour – she identified her race as African and/or Nigerian; and 2. her sex arising from her pregnancy. The Applicant further claims she was subjected to unlawful victimisation because she made complaints about unlawful discrimination. 1. The Applicant made a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board (the ADB) on 4 January 2024. 2. Pursuant to section 89B of the AD Act, the President accepted for investigation complaints of race discrimination, sex (pregnancy) discrimination, and victimisation against the Respondent entity, in respect of the parts of the complaint during the period 1 October 2022 to 4 January 2024 (the Complaint Period). Pursuant to section 89B(2)(a) the President also declined separate complaints against five named individuals who were employed by the Respondent. 3. Following correspondence by the ADB with the Respondent and Applicant, attempts to resolve the complaint by shuttle negotiation were unsuccessful. The President referred the matter to the Tribunal on 27 June 2024, at the request of the Applicant. 4. While the complaints against the named individual respondents were declined, it was uncontroversial that if unlawful discrimination or victimisation was established, the Respondent was vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees pursuant to s 53 of the AD Act.