Facilities management officer calls coworker's 'humiliating' video clip ageist
The Federal Court of Australia has recently ruled over an age discrimination claim filed by a former Commonwealth employee, alleging she was “humiliated” by her workmates due to her age.
The case deals with an issue of jurisdiction since the applicant filed it before the Federal Court without satisfying a precondition that an initial complaint should be filed before the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
The applicant was a facilities management officer at the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). One of the allegations involved an ATO meeting where they discussed the “inappropriate use of mobile phone devices” in the workplace.
Despite measures to ensure a level playing field for workers young and old, the problem of ageism persists in the modern workplace.
At that meeting, the applicant said that a workmate had covertly filmed her in the workplace without her consent and produced a “humiliating video clip” with the title “Elderlies in the ATO.” The clip was edited “to appear in grainy black and white, ultimately resembling a Chaplinesque film clip.”
When the applicant confronted the workmate, the latter defended his behaviour, who allegedly implied that [the applicant] was “in fact old” and he “could say or do whatever he liked.”
The applicant also said that the same workmate had been making ageist remarks about her even before the clip, causing “stress and embarrassment.”
After the meeting, the applicant claimed that her superior “appeared not to take the matter seriously.” She added that she was “especially shocked and disappointed” that her superior “did not attempt to address the issue of age discrimination or schedule a topic for a future meeting.”
Despite her concerns, she said that there was still “constant daily sniping” about her age and “concern that the clip might be uploaded to YouTube.”
The involved ATO employees said that the allegations were “a mere fabrication.”
Before the Federal Court, she claimed that the ATO discriminated against her because of her age. She also said that she was unlawfully discriminated against due to her “disability,” having been diagnosed with anxiety and depressive symptoms.
The court reminded the applicant of the preconditions set by the AHRC Act. It said that she “was required to meet [said preconditions] before she could become entitled to make an application to the court in respect of alleged unlawful discrimination.”
One of those preconditions is making an initial complaint to the AHRC, but the applicant conceded that she did not file anything.
Due to the applicant’s failure to satisfy the precondition, the court rejected the claims because it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the alleged violations under the anti-discrimination laws.
Thus, the employee’s application against the employer was dismissed by the court.
