Rota v Manly 16 Foot Sailing Club and SafeCorp Security Pty Ltd [2012] NSWADT 88

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Rota v Manly 16 Foot Sailing Club and SafeCorp Security Pty Ltd [2012] NSWADT 88 Hearing dates: 9 February 2010 Decision date: 11 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Furness, G SC, Judicial Member, Newman, J, Non-Judicial Member McClelland, J, Non-Judicial Member Decision: Complaints of race discrimination against each respondent dismissed Catchwords: Race discrimination - Registered Clubs - proof of membership - Goods and Services - whether security guards provide services to patrons Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Liquor Act 2007 Cases Cited: Sharma v Legal Aid Queensland [2001] FCA 169 JM and JN v QL and QM [2010] NSWADT 66 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Glen Rota (Applicant) Manly 16ft Skiff Sailing Club Ltd (First Respondent) Safecorp Security (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel B Clark (Respondents) K P O'Donnell & Associates (Applicant) File Number(s): 111084

REasons for decision

Introduction 1Glen Rota is a Maori man and a member of the Forest Rugby Club. He made a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board (the Board) dated 23 September 2010 about the Manly 16 foot Skiff Sailing Club (the Sailing Club) and Safe Corp Security Pty Ltd (Safe Corp Security). 2He complained that on 18 September 2010 he attended the Sailing Club for end of season drinks for his Rugby Club. Most players arrived at 12 noon and he arrived at about 3.30pm. At about 6.30pm he was told by a bouncer, that is a security guard employed by Safe Corp Security and contracted to the Sailing Club that he was drunk and had to stop drinking. He did so. At about 7pm he was told to leave the club. 3The Board referred his complaints to the Tribunal and in the President's summary of complaint, the complaint against the Sailing Club was said to be 'Race, registered clubs, vicarious liability of employers' and sections 7, 20A and 53 of the Act were cited. The complaint against Safe Corp Security was said to be 'Race, goods and services, liability of employers' and sections 7, 19 and 53 of the Act were cited. 4In his Points of Claim, Mr Rota's complaint against the Sailing Club was characterised as he was directly discriminated against on the ground of his race in the area of Registered Clubs (ss.7, 20A and 53). Further, Mr Rota's complaint against Safe Corp Security was characterised that the security guard discriminated against him on the ground of race in the area of goods and services (ss. 7, 19 and 53). 5Thus, the complaints which were referred from the President of the Board did not include a complaint against the Sailing Club on the basis that discriminated against him in the provision of goods or services. Further, in his Points of Claim before the Tribunal, Mr Rota did not assert that the Sailing Club had discriminated him in the provision of goods or services. 6The Sailing Club, in correspondence to the Board, denied the complaint and stated that the applicant was asked to leave the Sailing Club because he was intoxicated and, having formed that view, the Sailing Club was obliged to ask him to leave under the NSW liquor laws. 7Safe Corp Security did not respond to any of the requests made by the Board for a response to the complaint.