Ryan v Novartis Animal Health Australasia Ltd [2015] NSWCATAD 164

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ryan v Novartis Animal Health Australasia Ltd [2015] NSWCATAD 164 Hearing dates: 16 June 2015 Date of orders: 10 August 2015 Decision date: 10 August 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: N Hennessy LCM, Deputy President Decision: Leave for the complaints of sexual harassment disability discrimination and victimisation to proceed is refused. Catchwords: ANTI-DISCRIMINATON – whether leave should be granted for declined complaint of sexual harassment, victimisation and disability discrimination to proceed – whether fair and just in all the circumstances Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 22A, 22B, 50, 88B, 92, 96, Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) s 45 Cases Cited: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 Poniatowska v Hickinbotham [2009] FCA 680 Ryan v Novartis Animal Health Australasia Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 1242 Texts Cited: Australian Human Rights Commission, Effectively preventing and responding to sexual harassment: A Code of Practice for Employers, (2008, AHRC) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Meaghan Ryan (Applicant) Novartis Animal Health Australasia Ltd (Respondent) Representation: M Ryan (Applicant in person) FCB Workplace Law (Respondent) File Number(s): 1510220

reasons for decision

Introduction 1. Ms Ryan complained of sexual harassment, disability discrimination and victimisation against her former employer Novartis Animal Health Australasia Ltd. She was employed in July 2012 on a six month contract but her employment was terminated on 1 November 2012. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined the complaints because they were lacking in substance: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), s 92(1)(a). When that happens, the complainant must apply to the Tribunal for permission or 'leave' before the complaint can go ahead: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 96. 2. I have refused leave in this case. If these complaints were to proceed to a hearing, it is highly unlikely Ms Ryan would be able to prove that the alleged conduct constitutes a breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act.