Workplace discrimination related to Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD

SUBMISSION TO THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 REVIEW

SUBMITTER DETAILS

Name: Adam Ashby

Email: Date: 6 October 2025

Submission Type: Individual

Location:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This submission responds to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (‘DDA’)

Review consultation questions, drawing on lived experience of systematic workplace

discrimination and comprehensive case law analysis.

As a person with Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder (‘ADHD’), and a physical disability, I experienced discrimination that

culminated in termination within five days of raising disability-related concerns, with

my neurodiversity explicitly referenced as grounds for dismissal.

My case, combined with extensive precedent from cases including Ware v OAMPS

Insurance Brokers Ltd, the Sydney Trains discrimination case, and numerous ADHD

related workplace discrimination decisions, demonstrates critical failures in current

legal protections and provides compelling evidence for the comprehensive reforms

proposed by the Disability Royal Commission.

Current law enabled systematic discrimination despite comprehensive formal

policies, disability-confident accreditation, and executive-sponsored inclusion

commitments. The case law demonstrates this is not an isolated incident but part of

a systemic pattern requiring urgent legislative reform.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Disability Status

I am a person with disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act

1992 (Cth):

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) – formally diagnosed neurological condition
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) – formally diagnosed neurological condition
Physical mobility impairment – requiring an ACROD parking permit I am registered with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘NDIS’) and hold valid

ACROD documentation.

Evidence of Systematic Discrimination

Despite providing comprehensive medical documentation during employment

onboarding, I experienced systematic discrimination including:

Explicit disability reference in termination documentation, with neurodiversity cited as grounds for dismissal
Temporal proximity: termination occurred within five days of raising protected disability concerns
Zero reasonable adjustments: no accommodations were made despite early formal disclosure
Systematic differential treatment: professional behaviours were penalised while safety violations by others were tolerated
Policy–practice divide: the organisation maintained inclusion commitments while practicing discrimination

This case is currently before federal jurisdiction under s 351 of the Fair Work Act

2009 (Cth), demonstrating both the severity of the discrimination and the inadequacy

of the DDA.

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

PART A: DEFINITION OF DISABILITY

Question 1: How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination

Act?

The definition requires fundamental broadening. My experience, combined with

extensive case law including Rice et al.’s seminal analysis in ’It Just Doesn’t Add Up:

ADHD/ADD, the Workplace and Discrimination’, demonstrates how neurodivergent

conditions remain poorly understood and inadequately protected.

Case Law Evidence:

Rice et al. (2010) identified systematic workplace discrimination against employees with ADHD/ADD, noting that current definitions fail to capture the

functional impact of neurodivergent conditions

Recent tribunal data shows increasing ADHD-related discrimination claims
The Sydney Trains case demonstrated how inadequate definitions enable recruitment discrimination against potential employees with disabilities

Recommended Definition Elements:

Explicitly include neurodivergent conditions without pathologising language
Recognise the social model of disability – that disability results from societal barriers, not individual deficits
Cover episodic, fluctuating, and invisible conditions
Focus on functional impact and participation barriers
Eliminate stigmatising references to “disorder, illness or disease” Question 2: What factors should be considered in developing a new

definition?

Critical Factors from Personal Experience:

Self-identification primacy: individuals are the primary authorities on their disability

Workplace manifestation understanding: recognising how disabilities present in employment contexts
Intersectionality recognition: disability intersects with other identities Critical Factors from Case Law Analysis:
Ware v OAMPS demonstrated the need for clearer functional impact criteria
Court decisions on dismissal risks show employers require better guidance on disability recognition
ADHD workplace discrimination cases reveal the inadequacy of current pathology-focused definitions

Required Considerations:

Neurodiversity inclusion with specific recognition of neurological differences
Employer guidance providing clear direction for duty holders lacking awareness
Community consultation ensuring meaningful engagement with diverse disability communities
Legal precedent integration reflecting established discrimination patterns

PART B: INTERSECTIONALITY AND MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION

Question 3: Multiple protected attributes claims

Absolutely essential. My discrimination involved not only disability but

neurodivergence within neurotypical workplace culture, requiring explicit

intersectional legal recognition.

Supporting Case Evidence:

Rice et al. (2010) identified how ADHD discrimination intersects with gender and age biases
Recent tribunal cases show neurodivergent employees face compound discrimination based on communication styles and cultural fit expectations

The Sydney Trains case demonstrates how intersectionality affects both recruitment and ongoing employment decisions

Question 4: Additional intersectionality changes

Required provisions based on case analysis:

Specific language acknowledging intersection-based discrimination
Enhanced data collection on multiple-attribute discrimination
Representative complaint mechanisms for systemic issues
Compensation reflecting cumulative discrimination impact
Cultural competency requirements for service providers

PART C: DIRECT DISCRIMINATION

Question 5: Direct discrimination test

Recommended: “Less favourable treatment because of disability”

Personal Evidence:

My termination letter explicitly referenced neurodiversity as grounds for dismissal
An objective assessment focused on discriminatory impact, rather than intent, is required
A clear causation standard with burden shifting to the respondent is necessary

Case Law Support:

Ware v OAMPS established clear causation standards for disability-related treatment differences
Employment law analyses show explicit disability references in termination documentation

Recent cases demonstrate how neurodivergent behaviours are often mischaracterised as misconduct

Question 6: Burden of proof

Reform is urgent based on my experience and consistent case law patterns.

Current System Failures:

Despite explicit disability references in termination documentation, the burden remained on me as complainant
Power imbalances prevent employees from accessing internal decision- making processes
A five-day gap between protected disclosure and dismissal was treated as insufficient evidence

Required Reforms:

Burden shifts once prima facie discrimination is established
Adverse inferences should be drawn when employers fail to provide adequate explanations
Statutory presumptions for cases with explicit disability references
Discovery rights for internal communications

PART D: INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION

Question 7: Indirect discrimination definition

Streamline to focus on:

Neutral policies with disproportionate disability impact
Clear guidance on what constitutes disproportionate impact
Proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims test Case Law Evidence:

Rice et al. (2010) identified numerous “neutral” workplace policies that disproportionately impact neurodivergent employees
Recent cases show how standard communication and performance management policies create indirect discrimination
Ware v OAMPS demonstrated how ostensibly neutral accommodation processes can be discriminatory

Question 8: Reasonableness element

Answer: (c) replaced by legitimate and proportionate test

“Reasonableness” is inadequate – employers justify almost any practice as

reasonable from their perspective. A higher “legitimate and proportionate” standard

requires genuine business necessity with international human rights alignment.

Question 9: “Does not or would not comply” language

Answer: Yes, remove “does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be

able to comply“

This language is redundant and confusing. If a requirement disadvantages people

with disability, that’s sufficient. The “inability to comply” element:

Creates unnecessary complexity
Overlaps with the disadvantage requirement
Confuses duty holders attempting compliance
Provides technical grounds for dismissing valid claims Streamlining to focus on disadvantageous impact would clarify indirect discrimination

while maintaining protection scope.

PART E: OBJECTS AND INTERPRETATION

Questions 10-11: CRPD inclusion and beneficial interpretation

Both essential. Restrictive interpretations enabled discrimination in my case:

Evidence from Experience:

CRPD reference provides interpretive guidance aligning with international standards
Beneficial interpretation prevents restrictive approaches favouring employers
Human rights consistency ensures domestic/international law alignment

PART F: POSITIVE DUTY

Question 12: Positive duty application

Based on my experience with a major public sector organisation and extensive case

analysis, a positive duty should apply to:

All public sector entities – including those with comprehensive policies that still

practice discrimination. My case involved a major public organisation with excellent

policies but discriminatory practices. The Sydney Trains case shows public sector

discrimination despite policy frameworks.

Large private employers – organisations with resources to implement obligations.

Ware v OAMPS involved a large private employer that failed to accommodate

despite capacity.

Service providers and educational institutions – where exclusion has lifelong

impacts.

Question 13: Sex Discrimination Act lessons

Key lessons from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) reforms:

Clear regulatory guidance is essential for organisational understanding
Phased implementation allows adjustment
Regular reporting drives cultural change

Leadership accountability is crucial for success Question 14: Positive duty impacts

Costs: Initial compliance and training, accessibility upgrades, administrative burden

Benefits: Expanded client base, improved workplace culture, reduced legal risks,

innovation opportunities, enhanced reputation

Case law shows discrimination liability far exceeds prevention costs. Long-term

benefits outweigh costs, particularly where accessibility is built into design phases.

Question 15: Positive duty exceptions

Exceptions should be limited and strictly defined:

Small businesses (fewer than five employees) with support provided
Time-limited financial hardship exemptions with improvement plans
Disproportionate burden exemptions with mandatory alternatives

PART G: REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS

Question 16: Stand-alone duty benefits

A stand-alone duty to make reasonable adjustments is essential. The absence of

such clarity was central to the failures in my case.

Personal Evidence:

Without a stand-alone duty, my employer denied all adjustments despite formal medical documentation
A clear obligation would have removed ambiguity and created accountability
It would have shifted the focus from organisational convenience to actual disability needs

Case Law Support:

Ware v OAMPS demonstrated confusion about adjustment obligations
Employment law commentary shows employers frequently avoid engaging in adjustment discussions
Rice et al. (2010) identified adjustment avoidance as a systematic problem Question 17: Stand-alone duty scope

The duty should apply across all contexts and settings as recommended by the

Disability Royal Commission.

Scope Requirements:

Employment contexts, where I experienced a complete system failure
All DDA public life areas to avoid protection gaps
Recruitment, service provision, and education
Universal application to prevent exemption claims Question 18: Removing “reasonable” from adjustments

Removing the term “reasonable” is critical. In my case, the employer claimed no

adjustments were “reasonable” without proper assessment. This enabled complete

adjustment denial.

How “reasonable” failed:

Allowed subjective employer judgment to override disability needs
Shifted the focus to organisational convenience
Provided an excuse for zero accommodations Case Law Patterns:
Ware v OAMPS shows “reasonableness” used to avoid accommodation
Employment tribunal decisions reveal employers declaring adjustments “unreasonable” without proper exploration
Rice et al. (2010) identified it as a key barrier to neurodivergent inclusion Benefits of removing “reasonable”:

Eliminates excuses for non-accommodation
Focuses on actual disability need
Aligns with unjustifiable hardship test, which already limits obligations appropriately
Encourages creative problem-solving

PART H: EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS AND UNJUSTIFIABLE HARDSHIP

Question 19: Unjustifiable hardship

Answer: (b) new definition of unjustifiable hardship

Current definition enabled discrimination in my case. My organisation claimed

constraints while maintaining expensive inclusion programs without demonstrating

actual hardship.

Required elements:

Detailed financial evidence requirements
Consider cumulative inclusion benefits
Higher hardship claiming thresholds
Mandatory alternative exploration Questions 20-22: Employment and inherent requirements

Critical reforms needed:

Mandatory consultation – zero consultation occurred despite medical

documentation:

Ware v OAMPS showed lack of meaningful consultation
Employment law analyses show consultation absence as discrimination indicator

Narrow inherent requirements – limited to genuinely essential tasks, not cultural

preferences:

Rice et al. (2010) identified cultural fit bias masquerading as job requirements
Multiple dismissal precedents reveal overreach in inherent requirement claims Adjustment-informed assessment – requirements assessed with accommodations

in place:

Court decisions show requirements must consider potential adjustments Probationary protections – specific vulnerable period safeguards:
My probationary termination demonstrates urgent protection needs
Recent cases show probationary period exploitation for discrimination

PART I: EDUCATION PROVISIONS

Questions 23-26: Exclusion and exclusionary discipline

While my experience centers on employment discrimination, the principles are

directly transferable to educational settings. My case demonstrates how disability

related behaviors can be mischaracterized as conduct issues rather than

manifestations requiring accommodation.

Support for proposed reforms:

Exclusionary discipline should be explicitly unlawful when disability-related
Clear definitions needed distinguishing disability manifestation from misconduct
Procedural protections must include mandatory adjustment consideration before exclusion
Educational authorities should bear burden of proving exclusion wasn’t disability-based

Relevant parallels from employment context:

My professional behaviors were penalized as “performance issues” when they were

actually disability manifestations requiring accommodation. Educational settings

show identical patterns – students with ADHD suspended for attention difficulties,

autistic students excluded for communication differences.

Required reforms:

Define concepts preventing discrimination with clear exclusion/exclusionary discipline definitions
Strict organisational justification requirements
Procedural protections including advocacy support
Alternative accommodation-focused approaches

PART J: HARASSMENT AND VILIFICATION

Questions 27-30: Harassment and offensive behaviour

The Act must prohibit disability harassment. My experience included:

Systematic exclusion from activities and development
Public differential treatment humiliation
Hostile neurodivergent trait penalisation environment
Microaggressions including “do less work” instructions Required protections:
Explicit harassment prohibition covering subtle exclusion
Hostile environment provisions
Systemic discrimination recognition
Microaggression coverage Implementation recommendations:

Harassment should be defined broadly to include conduct reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate
Apply across all areas of public life, not just employment
Include online and social media contexts
Exemptions similar to Racial Discrimination Act s 18D for genuine artistic, academic, or scientific purposes
Vilification provisions for conduct inciting hatred or threatening violence

PART K: POLICE AND JUSTICE PROVISIONS

Questions 31-32: Police services and justice system

While not directly relevant to my case, this reform is critical. People with disability,

particularly neurodivergent individuals, face heightened risks in justice system

interactions.

Required amendments:

Explicit coverage of all policing activities including suspect interactions
No circumstances should exclude police from DDA obligations
Specific protections for neurodivergent individuals in questioning/detention
Mandatory training on disability recognition and appropriate responses
Clear accountability mechanisms for discriminatory policing Supporting rationale:

Rice et al.’s (2010) research and recent case law demonstrate how neurodivergent

individuals are disproportionately criminalized due to communication differences and

behavioral misinterpretation. Justice system protections are essential for preventing

discrimination cascade from initial police contact through prosecution.

PART L: EXEMPTIONS

Question 33: Narrowing permanent exemptions

Based on my public sector experience, exemptions require careful scrutiny:

Migration exemption (s 52): Should be significantly narrowed. Current breadth

enables systematic exclusion of people with disability from Australian society. Health

requirement should focus on genuine public health risks, not discriminatory cost

considerations.

Acts done under statutory authority (s 47): Requires tightening. My employer

operated under public sector frameworks while engaging in discrimination. Statutory

authority shouldn’t provide blanket protection from discrimination obligations.

Combat duties exemption (s 53): Should be limited to genuine operational

requirements with evidence-based assessment, not assumptions about disability

capacity.

Recommendation: All exemptions should include:

Narrow drafting limited to genuine necessity
Regular review requirements
Justification obligations
Alternative accommodation exploration requirements Question 34: Special measures certificates

Answer: Yes, AHRC should have this power.

This would:

Provide clarity for organizations genuinely pursuing inclusion
Distinguish legitimate special measures from discrimination
Reduce unnecessary temporary exemption applications
Encourage proactive inclusion initiatives Question 35: Definition for special measures

Answer: Yes, define as “measures for achieving substantive equality”

Current lack of definition creates uncertainty. A clear definition would:

Align with Sex Discrimination Act approach
Clarify legitimate positive action scope
Prevent misuse as discrimination justification
Guide organizational inclusion strategies Question 36: Definition for temporary exemptions

Answer: Yes, with clear criteria.

Definition should specify:

Circumstances warranting temporary relief
Evidence requirements
Time limitations
Improvement plan obligations
Review mechanisms This would prevent exemption abuse while maintaining necessary flexibility.

Question 37: Temporary exemption process changes

Recommendations:

Stricter criteria: Clear necessity demonstration requirements
Shorter durations: Maximum 2 years with extension requiring substantial progress evidence
Public reporting: Exemption holders must report progress and compliance efforts
Community consultation: Affected disability communities must be consulted
Sunset provisions: Automatic expiry without active renewal

PART M: ASSISTANCE ANIMALS AND ACTION PLANS

Questions 38-40: Assistance animals

Based on case analysis and practical needs:

Clear evidence requirements balancing access and certainty
Standardised training organisation prescriptions
Legislative amendment guidance
Flexibility-certainty balance Recommendations:
Guidance materials clarifying minimum training requirements under DDA
Prescribe reputable training organizations in regulations
Clear standards for evidence of assistance animal status
Balance between accessibility and duty holder certainty Questions 41-44: Action plans

My experience demonstrates inadequacy:

System Failures:

Organisation had comprehensive plan while practicing systematic discrimination
No implementation failure accountability
Aspirational statements without enforcement Required reforms:
Minimum requirements with specific, measurable commitments
AHRC inadequate plan rejection power
Time limits (3-5 years) with regular review and progress reporting
Non-compliance accountability measures
Mandatory consultation with disability community in plan development
Public reporting on implementation progress

PART N: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

Questions 45-47: Compliance and enforcement

Enhanced enforcement needed:

Meaningful consequences: Financial penalties reflecting discrimination severity

with organisational change remedies

Representative actions: Advocacy group standing for systemic issues as individual

complaints are insufficient

Interim protection: Complainant relief during proceedings with employment

continuity critical

Self-reporting requirements: Mandatory compliance reporting with independent

auditing

Positive duty enforcement: AHRC powers to investigate and enforce compliance

proactively, not just reactively through individual complaints

Disability Standards reporting: Relevant duty holders should self-report on

Disability Standards compliance in disability action plans, with AHRC guidance on

reporting requirements

PART O: FUTURE-PROOFING AND MODERNIZATION

Question 48: Other legislative provisions

Several provisions from other jurisdictions merit consideration:

Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010:

Positive duty model providing enforcement framework

“Attributes” approach allowing intersectionality recognition
Clearer victimization protections UK Equality Act 2010:
“Protected characteristics” framework with explicit intersectionality
Clearer reasonable adjustment duty
“Proportionate means” test for indirect discrimination ACT Discrimination Act 1991 (as amended 2024):
Recent intersectionality provisions
Modernized vilification protections
Enhanced positive duty framework Question 49: Additional guidance materials

Based on my experience where comprehensive policies failed to prevent

discrimination, guidance should include:

For duty holders:

Neurodiversity-specific accommodation guides with practical examples
Probationary period disability management protocols
Decision-making documentation requirements
Cultural change implementation frameworks
Case studies demonstrating successful inclusion For people with disability:
Rights explanation in accessible formats
Evidence gathering guidance for complaints
Accommodation request templates
Support service navigation assistance
Self-advocacy resources For decision-makers:

Disability impact assessment frameworks
Bias recognition training
Adjustment evaluation tools
Proportionality assessment guides Question 50: Future-proofing the DDA

Critical elements:

Principles-based drafting: Focus on substantive equality outcomes rather than

specific practices, allowing adaptation to technological and social change.

Regular review mechanisms: Mandatory 5-year comprehensive reviews with

disability community leadership ensuring ongoing relevance.

Technology neutrality: Provisions covering emerging technologies (AI, automation,

digital platforms) without requiring constant amendment.

Flexible standards: Framework legislation supplemented by regularly updated

standards reflecting current best practice.

Evolutionary definitions: Disability definition capable of encompassing emerging

understanding without legislative amendment.

International alignment: Built-in CRPD consistency requirements ensuring ongoing

international obligation compliance.

Question 51: Other issues

Critical additional reforms:

Victimization protections enhancement My five-day disclosure-to-termination timeline demonstrates inadequate victimization

protections. Required:

Automatic adverse inference for post-disclosure adverse action
Interim protection orders preventing termination pending investigation

Reverse burden of proof for temporal proximity cases
Enhanced remedies including reinstatement and exemplary damages

Systemic discrimination mechanisms Individual complaints are insufficient for addressing institutional discrimination.

Required:

Representative action provisions for advocacy organizations
Class action mechanisms for systemic issues
AHRC systemic investigation powers with enforcement capacity
Organizational accountability beyond individual respondents

Compliance monitoring and transparency My employer maintained inclusion credentials while practicing discrimination.

Required:

Mandatory diversity reporting for large organizations
Independent compliance auditing
Public accountability mechanisms
Accreditation standards enforcement

Remedies reform Current remedies inadequately address discrimination harm. Required:

Uncapped compensation reflecting actual loss
Exemplary damages for egregious discrimination
Mandatory organizational change orders
Public apology requirements
Costs protections for complainants

Intersecting legislation coordination My parallel Fair Work Act proceedings demonstrate fragmentation. Required:

Coordinated Commonwealth discrimination framework
Consistent definitions across legislation
Integrated complaint mechanisms
Gap closure between employment and discrimination law

CRITICAL REFORM AREAS

Probationary Period Protections

My probationary termination demonstrates urgent specific protection needs:

Full discrimination protection during probation
Additional time for reasonable accommodation implementation
Independent assessment for disability-related dismissals
Discrimination presumptions for post-disclosure termination

Fair Work Act Alignment

Parallel federal proceedings demonstrate fragmented protection requiring:

Consistent disability definitions across legislation
Integrated employment/discrimination protections
Gap closure and streamlined processes

Systemic Discrimination Recognition

Institutional discrimination requiring:

Legal recognition of systematic discrimination patterns
Organisational culture assessment beyond policies
Policy-practice divide accountability
Representative complaint standing for systemic issues

Neurodiversity-Specific Protections

Current law inadequately addresses neurodivergent discrimination requiring:

Explicit neurodiversity recognition as protected characteristic
Specific reasonable adjustment standards for neurological differences
Accessible workplace communication requirements
Executive function and sensory processing difference recognition

EVIDENCE-BASED IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Personal Consequences

Immediate effects: Sudden income loss, career damage, psychological distress,

health consequences

Long-term impacts: Employment barriers, disclosure fears, ongoing mental health

consequences, social isolation

Systemic Implications

Rice et al. (2010) documented eight times higher unemployment rates for

neurodivergent population. Recent data shows increasing neurodivergence-related

discrimination claims with employer surveys revealing inadequate understanding.

Systematic Failures:

Organisational inclusion rhetoric versus discrimination practice
Insufficient legal frameworks for meaningful inclusion
Cultural change necessity beyond compliance

COMPREHENSIVE REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS

Immediate Priority Reforms

Definition modernisation – broad, inclusive, social model-aligned disability definition

Probationary protections – vulnerable employment period specific safeguards
Burden of proof reform – prima facie discrimination established burden shift
Positive duty implementation – meaningful enforcement proactive obligations
Intersectionality recognition – multiple attribute discrimination provisions

Implementation Requirements

Adequate resourcing – enforcement and support substantial funding
Community partnership – disability community genuine collaboration
Cultural change focus – inclusion transformation beyond compliance
Regular review mechanisms – evidence-based effectiveness assessment
Accountability frameworks – discrimination meaningful consequences

Success Measures

Employment outcome improvements – reduced unemployment gaps for people with disability
Complaint resolution effectiveness – faster, more accessible processes
Organisational culture change – measured inclusion practice improvements
Legal precedent development – stronger discrimination jurisprudence
Community confidence growth – increased disclosure and participation rates

CONCLUSION

My experience provides compelling evidence that the Disability Discrimination Act

1992 requires fundamental reform. Current protections completely failed when most

needed, allowing systematic discrimination despite comprehensive formal policies

and public inclusion commitments.

The extensive case law analysis, from Rice et al.’s foundational 2010 research

through recent tribunal decisions including Ware v OAMPS, Sydney Trains, and

numerous neurodivergence workplace discrimination cases, demonstrates this is not

an isolated incident but part of a systematic pattern requiring comprehensive

legislative reform.

The temporal connection between my protected disclosure and termination (five

days), combined with explicit neurodiversity dismissal documentation references,

demonstrates how current law enables rather than prevents discrimination.

Organisations maintain disability-confident accreditation and executive-sponsored

inclusion programs while engaging in blatant discrimination without meaningful

consequences.

Reform must be ambitious, comprehensive, and developed in genuine disability

community partnership. Evidence from my case and extensive precedent analysis

shows incremental change is insufficient. Australia needs transformative reform

creating enforceable rights, meaningful accountability, and genuine inclusion.

The outlined reforms would prevent cases like mine and create workplaces where all

people with disability can participate fully and equally without discrimination or

exclusion fear. This benefits not only people with disability but creates more

innovative, productive, and inclusive organisations for everyone.

I urge comprehensive reform implementation reflecting Australia’s human rights and

genuine inclusion commitment. The evidence is clear, the need urgent, and the

opportunity for meaningful change is now.

REFERENCES

Cases

Ware v OAMPS Insurance Brokers Ltd [2005] FMCA 915 (Federal Magistrates Court

of Australia).

Legislation

Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT).

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic).

Equality Act 2010 (UK).

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

Government Reports and Publications

Australian Government. (2023). Disability Royal Commission final report. Commonwealth of Australia. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2024). Disability Discrimination Act 1992

review: Issues paper. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/australias-anti-discrimination-law/review-disability-discrimination-act

Journal Articles

Rice, S., Arnold, B., Easteal, P., & Easteal, S. (2010). It just doesn’t add up: ADHD/ADD, the workplace and discrimination. Melbourne University Law Review, 34(2), 359–391. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0011/1680076/Rice-et-al.pdf

Web-Based Legal Resources

Didlaw. (n.d.). I have ADHD and am being discriminated against in the workplace. https://didlaw.com/i-have-adhd-and-am-being-discriminated-against-in-the-workplace

Employment Law Handbook. (n.d.). Court decision shows the risks associated with dismissing an employee with disabilities.

https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com.au/bulletin/court-decision-shows-the-risks-associated-with-dismissing-an-employee-with-disabilities/

Human Rights Law Centre. (2023, January 12). Sydney Trains had unlawfully discriminated against potential employee [Case summary]. https://www.hrlc.org.au/case-summaries/2023-1-12-annovazzi-v-state-of-new-south-wales/

Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (n.d.). Employee unlawfully dismissed due to disability [Media release]. https://www.victorianchamber.com.au/news/employee-unlawfully-dismissed-due-to-disability

International Instruments

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html