{
    "componentChunkName": "component---src-templates-post-type-legal-interventions-js",
    "path": "/legal-interventions/tate-v-state-of-victoria-department-of-human-services-nov-2014/",
    "result": {"data":{"wpgraphql":{"page":{"title":"Tate v State of Victoria (Department of Human Services) &#8211; Nov 2014","uri":"legal-interventions/tate-v-state-of-victoria-department-of-human-services-nov-2014/","databaseId":2704,"acfPageHeader":{"layout":"standard","title":null,"introduction":null,"seoTitle":"Tate v State of Victoria (Department of Human Services) - Nov 2014 ","seoDescription":"This was a case involving a former employee of DHS claiming discrimination.","seoImage":null,"image":null,"buttonLink":null,"buttonColour":"default"},"appBreadcrumb":[{"title":"Home","link":"/"}],"acfTableOfContents":{"tableOfContents":null},"acfBodyContent":{"bodyContent":[{"__typename":"WPGraphQL_LegalIntervention_Acfbodycontent_BodyContent_Wysiwyg","contentHeading":"About the intervention ","content":"<p>This was a case involving a former employee of DHS claiming discrimination.</p>\n<p>Specifically:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of status as a parent or carer in the area of employment, in breach of sub-sections 18(a), 18(b) and 18(d) of the Equal Opportunity Act (EOA) 2010</li>\n<li>direct discrimination on the basis of employment activity in the area of employment, in breach of sub-sections 18(a), 18(b) and 18(d) of the Act</li>\n<li>discrimination on the grounds of an unreasonable refusal to accommodate a person’s responsibilities as parent or carer in breach of section 19 of the Act</li>\n<li>victimisation in breach of section 103 of the Act.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The Commission&#8217;s submissions in this proceeding focused solely on providing a framework for the Tribunal to interpret section 19 of the EOA 2010, the preferred approach to interpretation of section 19 in light of the limited case law available for guidance; what it means to accommodate an employee’s responsibilities as a parent or carer; what it means to unreasonably refuse to accommodate those responsibilities; and the interaction between section 19 and the right to request flexible working arrangements in the Fair Work Act 2000 (Cth).</p>\n<p>The Tribunal heard the application over 8 days in November 2014 before Senior Member Megay. The case was dismissed.</p>\n"}]},"acfRichContent":{"richContent":[{"__typename":"WPGraphQL_LegalIntervention_Acfrichcontent_RichContent_Downloads","title":"Download attachment ","introduction":"","downloads":[{"download":{"title":"Tate v State of Victoria &#8211; Submissions","fileSizeFormatted":"2.32MB","fileTypeFormatted":"PDF","sourceRemote":"https://cms.humanrights.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Intervention-Tate_v_State_of_Victoria-Submissions-Nov_2014.pdf","sourceLocal":{"publicURL":"/static/f9ae94c8844c4d4c86964688d827baf3/Intervention-Tate_v_State_of_Victoria-Submissions-Nov_2014.pdf"}}}]}]}}}},"pageContext":{"id":"bGVnYWwtaW50ZXJ2ZW50aW9uOjI3MDQ=","title":"Tate v State of Victoria (Department of Human Services) &#8211; Nov 2014","link":"https://cms.humanrights.vic.gov.au/legal-interventions/tate-v-state-of-victoria-department-of-human-services-nov-2014/"}},
    "staticQueryHashes": ["1001322823","130765067","1964591631","3000541721","3854666041","3896819453"]}