{"title":"残疾歧视、调整义务与持续误读问题","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Disability Discrimination, the Duty to Make Adjustments and the Problem of Persistent Misreading
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.