Kaur v State Transit Authority [2011] NSWADT 257

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Kaur v State Transit Authority [2011] NSWADT 257 Hearing dates: 11 October 2011 Decision date: 08 November 2011 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: Leave to proceed is refused Catchwords: LEAVE - complaint declined by Anti-Discrimination Board as lacking in substance - whether fair and just for complaint to proceed - drawing of inferences that race was a ground for the treatment - leave refused Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Cases Cited: Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 169 CLR 165 Chi v Technical and Further Education Commission (EOD) [2010] NSWADTAP 67 Chi v Technical and Further Education Commission (No 3) [2009] NSWADT 271 Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133 Jones & Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 Philip v State of New South Wales [2011] FMCA 308 Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Manjit Kaur (Applicant) State Transit Authority (Respondent) Representation: D Mahendra (Respondent) M Kaur (Applicant in person) File Number(s): 111081

REasons for decision 1EQUAL OPPORTUNITY DIVISION (N HENNESSY, LCM (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)): On 12 January 2010 Ms Kaur commenced a traineeship to be employed as a bus driver. The traineeship was for two years during which time Ms Kaur was to obtain Certificate III in Transport and Logistics (Road Transport). She was told that if she was unable to successfully complete the competencies her training contract may be terminated. Two weeks after she commenced training the State Transit Authority (STA) terminated her traineeship allegedly because she was not competent to drive a bus safely. Ten months later Ms Kaur complained to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board that she had been discriminated against on the ground of her race. Ms Kaur is from India. 2The President of the Board declined the complaint as lacking in substance. Ms Kaur requested that her complaint be referred to the Tribunal. A complaint that has been declined cannot go ahead unless the Tribunal gives its permission: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 ( AD Act ), s 96(1). The test to be applied is whether it is fair and just in all the circumstances for the complaint to proceed: Jones & Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 at [60]. The onus is on Ms Kaur to satisfy the Tribunal that leave should be granted.