Background of the Case
An admin officer has received over $55,000 in compensation after a tribunal ruled that a NSW Health agency discriminated against her due to her disability. Soneva Donald-Stanton lives with Klippel Feil syndrome, a musculoskeletal condition that affects her hand function and neck mobility. Despite this, she maintained that her condition never hindered her ability to perform her administrative role effectively.
She had worked in administration for more than 14 years before joining the Aboriginal Health Strategy department at Western Sydney Local Health District (WSLHD) in December 2021. However, several months into her new position, she began to feel uneasy about how she was being treated by management.
Unwanted Medical Assessment
Even though Ms. Donald-Stanton did not ask for any assistance or modifications, she was referred for a workstation assessment and medical check after her manager raised concerns about her physical limitations and questioned her ability to complete office tasks. The medical assessment was described as “very intrusive” and lasted four hours, leaving her feeling “violated.”
The process included a physical examination, sharing personal health information, and a cognitive test that she found extremely insulting. She described the experience as an “all-round awful experience.” The practitioner conducting the assessment concluded that she could only continue in her role if certain conditions were met, such as modifications to her commute and restrictions on colleagues discussing her disability. These conditions were deemed unfeasible, leading to her being declared unfit for work and placed on leave.
Legal Action and Tribunal Findings
Ms. Donald-Stanton pursued legal action against her employer, and in April, the Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled that she had been discriminated against. In a statement to the tribunal, her manager expressed concern that there was more the workplace could do to support her. She worried that without additional supports, the organization might be exposing her to health and safety risks.
However, the tribunal found that the manager failed to identify specific reasons why she believed Ms. Donald-Stanton’s health and safety was at risk at work. The decision noted that the manager’s actions were based solely on observing Ms. Donald-Stanton’s physical limitations. As a result, the tribunal determined that her disabilities played a significant role in her being treated less favorably and ultimately deemed unfit for work.
WSLHD was ordered to apologize to Ms. Donald-Stanton and provide all managers with disability discrimination training. The tribunal awarded her $55,000 in damages for the “hurt, humiliation and injury to feelings” she experienced.
A WSLHD spokesperson stated that the agency was reviewing the tribunal findings. They emphasized their commitment to providing a safe workplace and treating all employees with respect and fairness.
Personal Impact and Advocacy
Ms. Donald-Stanton said her experience was a realization of a long-held fear of being treated differently because of her physical disability. She highlighted the common assumption that people with disabilities are incapable or cognitively impaired based on appearance. She expressed surprise at the persistence of such attitudes in the community.
“I was judged by my appearance, and I hope that me winning this case shows that I wasn’t weak, I wasn’t vulnerable,” she said. She also emphasized that the findings marked a significant win for the disability community. Her motivation during the legal proceedings was to prevent similar situations from happening to others and to push for better treatment of people with disabilities.
While she didn’t care much about the financial compensation, she stressed that it sends a clear message to employers that failing to act appropriately can lead to significant economic consequences.
Addressing a Paternalistic Approach
Ms. Donald-Stanton was represented by Women’s Legal Service NSW during the proceedings. Assistant principal solicitor Sharmilla Bargon highlighted that people with disabilities are best equipped to understand their own needs and capacities. She criticized the paternalistic approach employers often take, which treats disability as a vulnerability or risk.
“Just having an employee with a disability doesn’t give an employer permission to request an employee’s full medical history, or broad intrusive health information,” she said. The case underscores a shift from a medical model of disability focused on perceived limitations or risk, to a human rights model centered on autonomy, dignity, inclusion, and removing workplace barriers.
