Adams v University of Western Sydney [2001] NSWADT 19

CITATION: Adams v University of Western Sydney [2001] NSWADT 19 revised - 06/03/2001 DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division APPLICANT PARTIES: Gayle Adams RESPONDENT University of Western Sydney FILE NUMBER: 53 of 1998 HEARING DATES: 15/06/00 16/06/00 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 06/16/2000 DATE OF DECISION: 02/12/2001

BEFORE: Rees N - Judicial Member; Clayton S - Member; Edwards K - Member APPLICATION: Sex Discrimination - In work MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED : Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5 Boehringer Ingelheim Pty Ltd v Reddrop [1984] 2 NSWLR 13 Haines v Leves [1987] 8 NSWLR 442 Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349 CASES CITED: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission v Ms Isa Mines Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 80 Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165 Reg. v. Birmingham City Council; Ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission Director-General of Education v Breen , the Court of Appeal of New South Wales Hill v University of New England (1990) EOC 92-291 APPLICANT S Winters, barrister REPRESENTATION: RESPONDENT J Oakley, barrister ORDERS: 1. Complaint dismissed

Introduction 1 In this case the complainant, Ms Gayle Adams, alleges that her former employer, the University of Western Sydney (the respondent), breached the sex discrimination provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act) by failing to renew her contract of employment when it expired, due to the effluxion of time, in early 1997. 2 The case was heard by the Tribunal in Sydney on 15 and 16 June 2000. Both parties were represented by counsel: the complainant by Ms Winters and the respondent by Ms Oakley. 3 In the paragraphs which follow we have set out summaries of the history of these proceedings, the evidence presented at the hearing and the submissions made by both parties, together with the judicial member's understanding of the applicable law, our findings of fact and the reasoning process which has led us to conclude that the complaint should be dismissed.