Lived experience of disability discrimination during recruitment

Attachment: Case Study — Lived Experience of Disability Discrimination in

Recruitment

Submitted by Angelina Raisa, October 2025.

Postgraduate Student, Master of Cultural and Creative Industries (Monash University)

Volunteer, CRPS Awareness at The Purple Bucket Foundation

Australian Disability Network (ADN) Stepping Into Program participant

Job application regarding : i (Paid internship)

Note: This submission has been prepared in an individual capacity, informed by my lived experience and with the support of The Purple Bucket Foundation’s committee. The views expressed do not represent those of Monash University or the Australian Disability Network.

Overview

This case study illustrates how procedural and communication-based discrimination can occur during recruitment for a government-owned organisation, despite the involvement of a recognised inclusion program. It highlights systemic gaps that the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Review should address, particularly in disclosure, language, policy transparency and procedural fairness.

Background

In May 2025, | applied through the Australian Disability Network (ADN) for a ‘Stepping Into’

internship placement with iii The role was an office-based communications position designed to support inclusion and engagement, not involving driving, machinery or any safety-sensitive duties. It aligned with my work history, experience, undergraduate and postgraduate studies and my professional focus on community, accessibility and inclusive communication.

| live with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), a recognised disability. My treatment

includes prescribed medical cannabis, which is legal under Victorian law and managed under medical supervision.

Disclosure and Response

After being offered the position, before the pre-employment medical assessment, | voluntarily

disclosed by phone to HR and/or Talent Acquisition that | use prescribed medical cannabis for

CRPS. | was told the organisation would clarify policy requirements before | proceeded, as |

requested. No clarification arrived, and | completed the medical in good faith.

More than two weeks after my disclosure, | was notified that my application would not

progress. No reason was provided, and | received only a generic rejection email. | requested the

relevant policy and a written explanation but did not receive either.

Throughout this period, responsibility for communication appeared to shift between staff members. The representative who initially handled my application was no longer contactable after the conversation that included the exclusionary language. I was redirected between various contacts, none of whom could provide clear information or ownership of my case. At two different stages, I was told another department would follow up, but no contact was ever made.

This lack of continuity left me without a clear point of contact, and without any accessible pathway to resolution.

After several further weeks and multiple follow-ups through the Australian Disability Network (ADN), I was finally told in the first week of October 2025 that the reason for withdrawal was the presence of THC under drug and alcohol policy. They had evidence of prescription and were aware of my disability. I was still not given a copy of that policy.

Timeline of Events 2025

Date / Period Event

May – June 2025 Applied through the Australian Disability Network (Stepping Into). Interviewed and received an offer from

Late June 2025 Phone disclosure of prescribed medical cannabis for CRPS. I requested and was told policy clarification would be sought before any medical testing. During this disclosure call, the staff member’s language showed discomfort with inclusive wording, beginning, ‘a failed a drug test …’ then trailing off. This indicated uncertainty about lawful prescriptions and contributed to a sense of stigma and exclusion.

27th June 2025 No clarification provided. I completed the pre-employment medical assessment in good faith.

7th - 10th July 2025 Received notice that my application would not progress, with no reason given. I formally requested reasons, and they said they would follow it up and email me. A generic rejection email followed, with no return email address.

August – September 2025   Repeated follow up emails to            and ADN requesting

the relevant policy and a written explanation. No policy or direct written explanation received from t to myself of ADN.

First week of October 2025 Received a call from a Talent Acquisition, confirmed the withdrawal reason was THC under the drug and alcohol policy. No copy of the policy was provided, despite

requested again.

October 2025 – present Continued requests for the policy.

Concerns & Observations

• Offer Withdrawal After Disclosure: The offer was rescinded only after disclosing legal, prescribed medical cannabis use.

• Unclear Policies: A member of HR and a member of Talent Acquisition stated they were unsure of the organisation’s policies regarding prescribed medical cannabis, raising concern about whether the process was informed or compliant.

• Stigmatising Language: HR initially referred to a “failed drug test” before correcting themselves to “positive,” indicating internalised stigma and a lack of disability-inclusive language training.

• Opaque Process: The rejection notice came from a generic, automated email address. No formal reasoning, named contact, or follow-up information was provided.

• Shifting Responsibility: Responsibility for communication moved between multiple staff members only after medication was disclosed to initial contact, HR staff. The initial contact became unreachable after the disclosure conversation, and subsequent staff that contacted me either failed to respond or said they would follow up with another department and send email with information, and did not follow up, nor email requested information.

• Disregard of ADN Protocols: The Australian Disability Network’s Stepping Into program promotes transparent and supportive adjustment discussions. This protocol was not followed.

• Potential Breach of Inclusion Standards: The situation may contravene the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and own inclusion commitments as a government-owned employer.

These observations demonstrate not only procedural failure but also a cultural and communicative gap in how disability and lawful medical treatment are handled during recruitment.

Key Issues

1. Lack of Policy Transparency – No written access to the policy relied upon for exclusion.

2. Poor Disclosure Communication – Staff appeared untrained in inclusive language or lawful medication protocols.

3. Procedural Delay and Silence – Weeks passed without response or clear next steps.

4. Indirect Discrimination – A blanket policy applied despite the role being non-safety-sensitive.

5. Missed Inclusion Opportunity – The internship aimed to promote disability inclusion through the Stepping Into program, yet exclusion occurred through process and language.

Why This Matters

This experience shows how procedural discrimination can occur quietly, not through hostility, but through avoidance, discomfort and outdated policy interpretation. It reveals how people with disability can be penalised for lawful medical treatment due to lack of guidance, inconsistent policy transparency and limited procedural fairness under the current DDA.

Recommendations for Reform

1. Mandate clear, written disclosure policies available upon request before any assessment.

2. Require disability and inclusion training for recruitment and HR staff, including language around lawful medical use.

3. Strengthen procedural fairness standards under the DDA, requiring timely responses and written reasons for exclusion.

4. Prohibit blanket drug-policy application to non-safety-sensitive roles without individual risk assessment.

5. Ensure accountability for government-owned entities participating in disability-employment programs.

Conclusion

My case shows how the absence of communication standards and policy transparency undermines the intent of the DDA and programs like Stepping Into. Reform must recognise that discrimination is not always deliberate, it often arises through silence, stigma and unclear processes. Embedding fairness, accountability and inclusive communication into the DDA will ensure people who disclose disability or lawful treatment are treated with dignity, clarity and respect.

Appendix:

No machine-readable text was extracted from this page.