Disability Discrimination, the Duty to Make Adjustments and the Problem of Persistent Misreading

Alice Taylor
{"title":"Disability Discrimination, the Duty to Make Adjustments and the Problem of Persistent Misreading","authors":"Alice Taylor","doi":"10.26180/5E6C77949D4D0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The statutory duty to make adjustments contained in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) is one mechanism to promote substantive equality in Australia. In theory, it requires duty-bearers to adjust existing practices to accomodate a person's needs. However, in Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists, it was established that a duty-bearer is only required to make adjustments for persons with disabilities where the reason for the refusal to make adjustments is based on the disability itself. This removes the positive aspect of the duty from the requirement and it makes it almost impossible for a claimant to prove their claim. This is not the first time that an Australian appellate court has effectively removed the positive duty aspects of the duty to make adjustments. This article will consider the reasons why higher courts in Australia appear to struggle to give meaning to such a duty. It will outline the purpose of the duty to make adjustments, before considering the approach of Australian courts to the duty. It will conclude by considering the different approaches adopted to such a duty in comparable jurisdictions and suggest reforms to the current Australian approach.","PeriodicalId":44672,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Law Review","volume":"50 1","pages":"461-486"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26180/5E6C77949D4D0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The statutory duty to make adjustments contained in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) is one mechanism to promote substantive equality in Australia. In theory, it requires duty-bearers to adjust existing practices to accomodate a person's needs. However, in Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists, it was established that a duty-bearer is only required to make adjustments for persons with disabilities where the reason for the refusal to make adjustments is based on the disability itself. This removes the positive aspect of the duty from the requirement and it makes it almost impossible for a claimant to prove their claim. This is not the first time that an Australian appellate court has effectively removed the positive duty aspects of the duty to make adjustments. This article will consider the reasons why higher courts in Australia appear to struggle to give meaning to such a duty. It will outline the purpose of the duty to make adjustments, before considering the approach of Australian courts to the duty. It will conclude by considering the different approaches adopted to such a duty in comparable jurisdictions and suggest reforms to the current Australian approach.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
残疾歧视、调整义务与持续误读问题
1992年《残疾歧视法》(联邦)所载的作出调整的法定义务是促进澳大利亚实质性平等的一种机制。理论上,它要求责任承担者调整现有的做法以适应个人的需求。然而,在Sklavos诉Australasian College of Dermatologists一案中,规定只有当拒绝做出调整的理由是基于残疾本身时,才要求义务承担者为残疾人做出调整。这从要求中删除了责任的积极方面,使索赔人几乎不可能证明他们的索赔。这并不是澳大利亚上诉法院第一次有效地取消了该义务的积极义务方面进行调整。这篇文章将考虑为什么澳大利亚的高等法院似乎在努力赋予这种责任的意义。在考虑澳大利亚法院对该义务的做法之前,它将概述该义务进行调整的目的。最后,报告将审议在类似司法管辖区对这一义务采取的不同做法,并建议对澳大利亚目前的做法进行改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Section 32(1) of the Victorian Charter: strained constructions and legislative intention Peoplehood Obscured? The Normative Status of Self-Determination after the Chagos Advisory Opinion (Advance) Is the Wisdom of a Person's Decision Relevant to Their Capacity to Make That Decision? Not Black and White?: Disciplinary Regulation of Doctors Convicted of Child Pornography Offences in Australia Reconceptualising the Law of the Dead by Expanding the Interests of the Living
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1