Kay v Department of Corrective Services [2010] NSWADT 118

CITATION: Kay v Department of Corrective Services [2010] NSWADT 118

DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division

Applicant: Michael Kay PARTIES: Respondent: Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services

FILE NUMBER: 071108 & 081012

HEARING DATES: 29, 30 July 2008, 4, 8 August 2008, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18 November 2008

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 18 November 2008

DATE OF DECISION: 20 May 2010

BEFORE: Vass S - Judicial Member; Schneeweiss J - Non-Judicial Member ; Kelleghan D - Non-Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Disability Discrimination, Employment, Victimisation, Aiding and Abetting

LEGISLATION CITED : Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 NSW

Zhang v Blinds Pty Ltd [2010] NSW ADT 91 CASES CITED: Mitchell v Clayton Utz [2009] NSW ADT 266 Sivanantham v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSW ADT 44 Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2002] NSW ADT 5

Applicant Representative: In person REPRESENTATION: Respondent Representative: T Anderson - Barrister

ORDERS: The applications are dismissed

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. These proceedings arise out of complaints made by Mr Kay, the Applicant against the Commissioner , Department of Corrective Services, (" The Department "). The first relates to a complaint that Mr Kay had been discriminated against on the ground of disability and the Department aided and abetted the Public Service Association (" PSA ") in its discrimination. Mr Kay alleges that the period of the discrimination occurred between 19 October 2004 and 19 October 2005. The nature of the complaint relates to alleged breaches of Sections 49A to 49D inclusive, Section 52 and Section 53 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1997 NSW (" AD Act "). The subsequent complaint by Mr Kay against the Department alleges discrimination on the ground of disability and victimisation. Mr Kay alleges that the period of the discrimination occurred between September 2007 to 24 October 2007. The nature of the complaint relates to alleged breaches of Section 49A to 49D inclusive and Section 50 of the ADA. 2. The Department states that these applications should be dismissed.