Equal Opportunity Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION: Depcinski -V- Department Of Housing [1998] NSWEOT COMPLAINANT: Veronika Depcinski RESPONDENT: Department of Housing NUMBER: 140 of 1997 R Bartley ( Judicial Member ) TRIBUNAL: L Mooney L Nemeth de Bikal GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT: DATES OF HEARING: 05/12/1998 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/12/1998 Complainant: Self-Represented LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Teakle Ormsby George (Solicitor) Mr T Hughes (Counsel) JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF: Respondent CHAIRPERSON: On 2 April 1996 the complainant lodged a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 with the Anti-Discrimination Board against the New South Wales Department of Housing. The complaint was based on discrimination by the respondent on the basis of sex, age and race and victimisation and harassment. The report of the Anti-Discrimination Board was tendered as was the documentation of the complainant. The respondent did not desire to cross-examine the complainant and did not call evidence. The basis of the complaint is set out in the statement of the complainant tendered before the Tribunal. It was difficult to ascertain from the evidence the exact details of the complaint. The Tribunal asked the complainant to point to evidence supporting any discrimination based on each of her grounds and this she did as follows: 1. Sex. The complainant indicated they rang her up all the time. She was called to find out what she was doing sexually and as to whether she needed a pusher. She then rang Ellison, the secretary from the Ministry and the phone calls stopped. She said the calls were from the Department of Housing as no-one else spoke to her so brutally. This happened two years ago. 2. Age. She said this was done through the tenants calling her names. After fifteen years with the Department of Housing she knew it was the Department of Housing as she knew how they treated her and that they wanted to put in young people. 3. Race. She says this was the worst thing. She said she was discriminated against when there was a disagreement with the neighbours about TV. She told me I should go back to where I came from. She was told Germans are all killers and she was not wanted nearby. The TV was not turned down and in the office of the Community Justice Centre the neighbour said she would cut her throat. 4. Harassment. The complainant said it was the same as the reasons for race. 5. Victimisation. She said the Department had not subjected her to any detriment as a result of her making a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act . The Tribunal is of the view there is little, if anything, to connect the respondent with the matters raised in the complaint. We do not accept the statement of the complainant that the tenants annoyed her at the instigation of the respondent. From what we can glean from the evidence, the respondent did what it could to alleviate the problems between the other tenants and the complainant. It does appear that life at the Department of Housing estate is not pleasant but the respondent is not the cause of these problems and is in an invidious situation where there are problems between tenants in a close knit housing establishment. The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Does she understand everything that has been said? COMPLAINANT: Yes I understood everything but I'm not satisfied with the decision because they are really guilty and I am surprised that this court brought such a decision. CHAIRPERSON: Right well that's the decision and thank you very much. COMPLAINANT: Am I not entitled to an appeal? CHAIRPERSON: Well you'll have to see the Registrar on another day. If you want to appeal in law, you have twenty-one days to appeal. COMPLAINANT: Thank you. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.