Home   |   Companies   |   Browse Archives   |   HR Awards   |   Subscribe   |   Advertising     
Search Site


HR directory
Career development
Consultants
Employment law / OHS
HR management & strategy
International HR
Leadership development
Learning & development
Organisational change & Development
Psychological services
Recruitment
Recruitment by sector
Remuneration & benefits
Technology
 
 
 

  News September 3, 2010
Lawyer cites ‘adverse action’ concerns

 
The recent changes to the Federal Disability Discrimina tion Act should not be employers’ greatest concern. The impact of the new discrimination law powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman are of more significance, according to Jane Seymour of Justitia Lawyers & Consultants.

Although the changes to the Disability Discrimination Act, which came into effect on 5 August, will affect em ployers, Seymour said the newly introduced right of em ployees to make a discrimination complaint to the Fair Work Ombudsman should cause employers more concern.

“The recent changes to the Federal disability legisla tion do change the detail of the law, but not so significantly that employers can either relax or, on the other hand, have to significantly tighten their practice,” said Seymour.

She said what should be of more concern for em ployers is potential prosecution by the Fair Work Om budsman for taking discriminatory “adverse action” – where employees can make a direct complaint to the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to disability (and other types of ) discrimination.

“This adds a much greater risk for the employer who puts a foot wrong in the area of disability,” said Seymour. “Employers could face investigation, prosecution and potentially a penalty of up to $33,000 for each breach.”

Since 1 July the Fair Work Ombudsman has been able to start legal proceedings against an employer found to be discriminating against an employee.

The recent changes to the Disability Discrimination Act include the introduction of an explicit obligation to provide “reasonable adjustments” and extending the availability of the “inherent requirements” and “unjusti fiable hardship” defences.

“One of the main changes is that the onus of proof has shifted from the employee to the employer,” said Seymour.

7 August 2009

Send this article to colleague/friend

More news for News
Australian managers lack self-awareness
Regional employees more engaged than metro cousins
The myths of workplace bullying revealed
HR must step up gender pay equity efforts
Extended deadline: Last chance to enter HR Compass Awards!


Home |  Archived Articles |  Advertising |  About Us |  Contact Us |  Privacy Policy

Copyright © Reed Business Information. All material on this site is subject to copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced, translated, transmitted, framed or stored in a retrieval system for public or private use without the written permission of the publisher.

eNewsletter
 
enter email to register/unregister
Resources
Book Reviews
Web Reviews
Professional Links
Conferences
Breakfast Briefings
LexisNexis
Lawyers Weekly
Risk Management