Apple store indirectly discriminated against medically compromised employee

The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal has found that a partially obstructed bathroom constituted indirect discrimination against an employee who required reliable access due to a medical condition.

In a decision handed down on 31 August, the multinational technology company’s Canberra location was ordered to pay $18,000 in compensation due to indirect discrimination, with the tribunal clarifying that it was not liable of direct discrimination in relation to the bathroom access or its rejection of a partial working-from-home request.

The applicant brought proceedings against Apple on the basis of disability discrimination under the Discrimination Act 1991.

Living with a condition that required frequent and sudden bathroom visits, the applicant outlined six alleged acts of direct discrimination by the respondent, including two rejections of staff bathroom facilities and three rejections of working from home in September 2021, March 2023, and October 2023, and one rejection of an alternative role request in late 2023.

The argument of indirect discrimination only related to bathroom access.

On the nature and impact of the illness, senior member Robert Orr said: “I have no doubt that the applicant’s condition has been a significant detriment and burden to him.”

“I also have no doubt that the managers of the respondent had significant concern for the applicant’s welfare, did what they could and were able to support him. However, that of itself is not sufficient to defeat a claim of discrimination.”

He added: “In order to succeed in these proceedings the applicant needs to show that the requirements for a finding of discrimination under the Discrimination Act have been met. It is not enough that he has significant disabilities, and that he believes he was treated unfairly, and even that the actions of the respondent affected him adversely.”

In this way, the applicant had to establish direct discrimination in relation to the bathroom complaints and prove he was treated unfavourably because of his disability.

According to the applicant, his condition was discussed at least once with a manager within a few weeks of starting employment.

The applicant claimed to have said: “if I need to go to the toilet, I get a sharp stabbing pain … it’s really stressful”.

In addition, cleaning items occasionally prevented the accessible toilet door from closing, with the applicant further claiming staff sometimes used the toilet as a changing area, and that cleaning staff had to frequent the bathroom.

The manager allegedly asked for a medical certificate, granted him permission to sit down when he needed to, and informed the applicant that the floor washing machine had to be stored in the accessible toilet.

Following the discussion, the applicant noticed the respondent had partially removed some equipment from the toilet, but that cleaning supplies and the washing machine remained.

He said: “I was heavily restricted in my movements in the toilet due to the large cleaning machine which prevented my safe and ready access to the facility.”

The applicant also claimed that there were often long waits for the regular bathrooms.

Further, the applicant suffered a hand injury connected to the obstructed access within the accessible bathroom.

Orr found the requirement that the applicant use the standard bathrooms and the unavailability of the accessible bathroom an imposition on the applicant that had a disadvantageous effect on the management of his condition.

Further, the respondent failed to show that the requirement was reasonable.

In this way, Orr said: “I find that the applicant had a disability and protected attribute for the purpose of the Discrimination Act, and that the complaints fall within the concept of possible discrimination in relation to work in section 10 of the Discrimination Act.”

Orr did not find a basis for unfavourable treatment because of the disability, because some of the concerns were addressed, and those not addressed immediately were unrelated to the disability. Similarly, it was noted that the staff supported the applicant’s management of his condition.

Regarding the work-from-home request, the respondent purported that there were no work-from-home positions within Apple Retail, and that several periods of remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic were connected to the retail customer care team, which was a separate part of the organisation.

Despite claiming an improvement in health during these remote working periods, the applicant was informed by a senior people manager that “Apple Retail does not currently have any positions available for work from home permanently” and was directed to the relevant job advertisement page.

Further communication repeated this sentiment, adding: “While we are continuing to support you, if you are deemed fit for work from home only we would recommend that you look for roles that will fit your requirements.”

While the applicant claimed that the failure to provide working-from-home arrangements amounted to direct discrimination, Orr determined that Apple did not make the rejection because of the disability.

In this way, it was determined that “the claim of direct discrimination in relation to the work from home requests is not made out”.

Apple was ordered to pay $18,000 in compensation to the applicant due to indirect discrimination relating to access to the bathroom.

Citation: Applicant 35/2025 v Apple Pty Ltd (Discrimination) [2026] ACAT 54

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.