The Complainant (C) had been working as an assembly-line worker at a food packaging company (R) for almost 10 years. Once C developed severe back pain and took sick leave for several weeks. Her doctor advised her to perform light tasks only. She submitted a medical certificate to her supervisor but was still made to continue with her work. Instead of giving her physically less demanding work, R later assigned C to a different production line where the packaging materials were heavier.

Later, R issued a warning letter to C citing poor attitude towards senior staff for disagreeing with her supervisor over some work procedures. C refused to sign the letter. A few days later she was transferred to work on the night shift without reasons or prior notice. C found the overall work environment beyond her tolerance and resigned.

C filed a complaint of disability discrimination against R with the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). The case was settled through conciliation after R agreed to pay C a monetary compensation worth more than her yearly wages.

The Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO) makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against the employees with disability or sickness by subjecting them to detriment. In this case, the employer’s failure to provide accommodation could have been detrimental to the employee, unless the employer could prove that the provision of accommodation would cause the company unjustifiable hardship. Accommodation refers to any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment that makes it possible for an individual with disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities. As a good management practice, it is advisable to communicate clearly with the staff the reasons for transfer (either to a new post or to a new shift) to avoid misunderstanding.

The Complainant (C) was a clerk at a public organization(R). He was assigned to act as an assistant officer for more than six years. When there was a vacancy for the position of assistant officer, he applied. According to the company rule, applicants had to pass the Word Processing Proficiency Test (WPPT) in English and Chinese, to be allowed to sit for an interview for the position. He claimed that he requested R to consider his disability and make necessary accommodations but no measures were taken to accommodate his disability during the test. He failed the test and was, therefore, not granted an interview.

C lodged a complaint with the EOC alleging that R discriminated against him on the ground of his disability by requiring him to sit for WPPT without making any accommodations. R claimed the test was required to maintain fairness among all applicants. The case was settled through conciliation after R agreed to exempt C from that WPPT and allowed him to sit for the interview.

According to the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO) a person indirectly discriminates against another person if he applies the same requirement (rule, policy, practice, or procedure) or condition, which cannot be justified, equally on people with and without disability but which has an unfair effect on a people with disability because they cannot meet it. C was indirectly discriminated against because the company applied the same rule to him as those to other applicants despite him having a permanent disability and did not take measures to accommodate his disability.

The Complainant (C) was a wheelchair user. The housing estate (R) where he lived did not have wheelchair access to the shopping mall in level 1 and the podium in level 9 because of which C could not go to these places.

C lodged a complaint of disability discrimination with the EOC against R. The case was settled after R agreed to install up-to-standard ramp pavement at level 1 and metal ramp at one entrance/exit at level 9 within 2 months of the date of agreement.

It is unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO) to discriminate against a person with disability in relation to the provision of means of access to premises. Estate managers, developers and property management companies are advised to create a barrier-free access to people with disabilities in such a way that they can use it without external help. It might amount to indirect discrimination if a property management company fails to provide proper access facilities to residents who use wheelchairs.

The Complainant (C), a man who was blind, took a flight to and from Hong Kong with six other fellow passengers (some with visual impairment and some blind) with an airline (R). C, who also acted as the representative to other six, claimed that R did not allow them to sit together on their seats as per their boarding pass and scattered them during both flights because of their visual impairment. R removed those sitting on the aisle seats and made them sit towards the window citing Civil Aviation Department’s guideline of passenger safety. However R did agree that the guideline did not specifically spell out any seat arrangement for persons with visual impairment.

C lodged a complaint of disability discrimination with the EOC against R. The case was settled through early conciliation after R agreed to provide two round trip tickets to all seven passengers so that they could bring along their companions. The tickets were valid for one year except during the embargo period defined by R. R also admitted there was room for improvement and apologized to C.

It is unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance to discriminate against a person with disability in the terms or conditions on which to use the services and facilities. Disability discrimination occurs if a service provider treats a person with disability less favourably than another person without disability.

The Complainant (C) worked as an assistant building supervisor at a property management company (R1). C used to have shoulder pain due to work related injury. C claimed his supervisor (R2) harassed him by passing comments about his pain.

C lodged a complaint of disability harassment with the EOC against R2 and R1 for being vicariously liable for the alleged unlawful act by R2. The case was settled through early conciliation after R2 and R1 agreed to make an written acknowledgement of C’s work injury.

Harassment against a person with disability is unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance. Harassment is any unwelcome conduct on account of a person's disability where it can be reasonably anticipated that the person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated. Commenting on a co-worker’s disability may amount to disability harassment. Employers have to ensure that there is no discrimination against people with disability at workplace failing which they may be held vicariously liable for their employees’ unlawful acts.

The Representative Complainant (RC) was representing his daughter who missed schools frequently because of menstrual pain and other illnesses. RC claimed that his daughter’s school (R) refused to give the HKCEE admission certificate to her and also barred her from participating in the school’s mock examination because of the frequent sick leave.

RC lodged a complaint with the EOC of disability discrimination on behalf of his daughter against R. The case was settled through early conciliation after R agreed to return the HKCEE admission certificate to C’s daughter, issue a transcript of the girl’s mock examination results by evaluating it on the basis of her performance in the previous uniform test, provide a certificate of leave and amend the school’s regulations and implement amended regulations in the next academic year.

It is unlawful for an academic establishment to discriminate against a student with a disability by denying that student access to any benefit, service or facility provided by that educational establishment. School regulations disqualifying students from attending public examinations or school examinations on the ground of their attendance without considering the student’s disability may amount to indirect disability discrimination.

The Complainant (C) worked as a senior merchandiser at a company (R). One and a half years after C joined office, he developed a blood disease which required taking daily injections for two consecutive weeks. C needed to take half-day off for two weeks to receive the treatment and notified R. C claimed that R dismissed him immediately upon receiving the notification.

C lodged a complaint of disability discrimination with the EOC against R. The case was settled after R agreed to provide a reference letter for C and also a monetary compensation amounting to half of C’s medical expenses.

It is unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance to dismiss an employee on the ground of his/her disability and related sick-leave. In instances where employers allege that employees are dismissed for poor performance, employers have to be able to show the record of their performance evaluation.

The Complainant (C) worked in the Information Technology Department of a non-profit making organisation (R). C claimed that R dismissed him because of his refusal to participate in fund-raising activities due to poor health.

C lodged a complaint of disability discrimination with the EOC against R. R explained that C was dismissed because of poor performance. The case was settled after R agreed to provide a certificate of service to C, report in its newsletter that C had resigned due to health reasons and keep the dismissal letter confidential.

It is unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance to dismiss an employee on the ground of his/her disability and related sick-leave. In instances where employers allege that employees are dismissed for poor performance, employers have to be able to show the record of their performance evaluation.

The Complainant (C) was a manager at a company (R) where he had worked for more than a decade. C had to undergo five surgeries to treat cancer within two and a half years and had to take sick leave for most of that period. When C finally recovered and resumed work he was asked to perform clerical duties although he claimed he was fit to carry on his previous duties. His previous title and salary, however, did not change. Four months later, R terminated C’s employment citing financial constraints. C later discovered that two other managers were leaving the job and R was looking for their replacement. R did not allow C to take up one of the positions.

C lodged a complaint with the EOC alleging disability discrimination. C claimed that since R had the provision of giving three months notice before quitting job, R was aware of the two vacancies that were to arise while dismissing him. C alleged that his dismissal and R’s refusal to allow him to fill in for the vacant position was due to his past disability. The Complaint was resolved through conciliation after R agreed to pay a sum almost equal to C’s nine months’ salary, as a monetary compensation.

It is unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO) to discriminate against an employee by dismissing that person on the ground of his/her chronic illness or the regular treatment for the illness. The DDO requires employers to ascertain whether an employee can perform the inherent requirements of a job. The employer has a duty to provide reasonable accommodation (e.g. modification or adjustment to a job, providing or modifying equipment, changing work schedules, and etc) in helping the employee to perform the inherent requirements unless this would impose unjustifiable hardship to employers.

The Complainant was a person with a physical disability and used wheelchair or crutches to aid walking. He alleged that the Respondent, a property management company, had discriminated against him on the ground of his disability by keeping the doors of a shopping centre closed.

The Respondent explained that, for energy conservation, the glass doors at various entrances were not kept open. It accepted that wheelchair users or some elderly persons might encounter difficulty in pushing the doors open. There were, however, alternatives, such as doorbells to call for assistance, and that the entrance to the adjoining food market was not shut. The Complainant considered the current access arrangements discriminatory, as the Respondent did not provide access to the shopping centre compared with a person without a disability.

The Respondent agreed to install electrical doors at two entrances within six months and the matter was settled.

It may be unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance if the terms or conditions on access to premises prevent a person with a disability from gaining access to those premises unless: (a) the premises are designed or constructed to be inaccessible to a person with a disability, and (b) any alteration to the premises to provide such access would impose unjustifiable hardship on the owners or manager of the premises.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) was a wheelchair user who lodged a complaint through a non-governmental organisation against the Respondent, a bank, for its inaccessible service.

To update her passbook during banking hours, the AP could use the counter service in the banking hall. After banking hours, however, she could not use the passbook-updating machine in the mall counter due to the inaccessible entrance to the mall.

The parties agreed to resolve the matter through early conciliation. The Respondent agreed to move the passbook-updating machine from the mall counter to the 24-hour self-service corner of the branch office, which was accessible to wheelchair users.

Under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance, it may be unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a person with a disability in the terms or conditions on which the service provider is prepared to allow the person with a disability the use of any such facilities in any premises that the public or a section of the public is entitled or allowed to enter or use. The original location of the passbook-updating machine and the access barrier at the entrance of the mall had limited the choice of banking services for wheelchair users.

The Complainant has worked at the Respondent School ("the School") as a teacher since 1997. He was first employed as Graduate Master. In 2002, he was diagnosed with lung cancer and took frequent and long sick leave in that academic year. In July 2003, the Respondent Principal ("the Principal") discussed with the Complainant his situation and downgraded him to an Assistant Graduate Master from academic year 2003/04 onwards. The Complainant agreed to the arrangement.

The Complainant had successful treatment in May 2005 and was certain he could resume his full duties as a Graduate Master. He made the request but was turned down by the School based on his health condition. The Complainant alleged that the Principal was responsible for the decision and that the refusal was disability discrimination. The School and the Principal both denied the allegation. The School did not have any updated information on the health condition of the Complainant.

Under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance, it is unlawful for an employer to cause detriment to an employee on ground of his/her disability. If an employer decides that an employee is unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the job, the employer has to show that its decision is justified based on available information. A person who knowingly aids the employer in an unlawful act under the DDO would be considered doing the unlawful act.

The Complainant was a person living with HIV. He hurt his leg in a traffic accident in August 2005, which involved no bleeding, and was admitted to the Respondent hospital. During hospitalisation, the Respondent's nursing staff hung a board on the side of his bed containing various precaution labels on the need to wear gloves and protective uniform, and wash hands. The nursing staff did not hang boards with similar labels on the beds of other patients. The Complainant was upset by the board and turned it around so that the precaution labels were not displayed, but the nursing staff turned it over again. The Complainant could not tolerate the situation and discharged himself from the hospital before his recovery.

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent had discriminated against him on the ground of his illness by hanging the board on the side of his bed.

The parties agreed to attempt early conciliation to resolve the matter and the complaint was settled without a full investigation. The Respondent gave the Complainant a written apology and undertook to provide equal opportunities training to its medical staff.

Under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance, it is unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a person with a disability in the manner in which it provides those services.

The Complainant was a Customer Relations Officer with the Respondent, a property management company. He alleged that the Respondent had discriminated against him by not paying him his annual bonus on the ground of his disability (epilepsy).

The Complainant had worked for the Respondent for several years before he underwent a brain operation to treat his epilepsy-related condition. He was admitted to hospital in late April 2005 and resumed duty in mid-July. His doctor recommended that he should not work night duties as it could make him emotionally unstable. He submitted his medical certificate to the Respondent and asked for accommodation. The Respondent did not respond positively and continued to assign him to night duties. At year-end, the Respondent did not pay him any bonus on the ground that he had taken too much sick leave in the year. The Complainant was also warned by his supervisor that he would be dismissed if he continued to take frequent sick leaves.

The parties agreed to resolve the complaint through early conciliation. The Respondent agreed to issue a bonus to the Complainant and to exempt him from night duties upon presentation of a doctor's recommendation.

An employee recovering from an operation may need time to recover and readjust. The employer should consider providing accommodation to help the employee to perform his/her job unless by doing so would cause unjustifiable hardship to the employer.

An employer acting contrary to medical advice may incur liability in case of work accidents.

Where a bonus payment relates to attendance level, the employer must ensure that such a scheme does not directly or indirectly discriminate against an employee with a disability.

This was a representative complaint. The Aggrieved Person (AP) was a person with a mental disability and she was represented by her mother, the Representative Complainant (RC). The AP and RC both worked for the Respondent. The AP was employed as a cleansing worker in mid-2003 and was dismissed in June 2004 on the ground that she had failed to cope with the job requirements.

The RC claimed the AP was dismissed on the ground of her disability following an incident in May 2004. The incident involved a male colleague taunting the AP and slapping her on the face. The AP took seven days of combined sick leave and annual leave afterwards but no disciplinary action was ever taken against the male colleague. On her return to work, the AP was transferred to the day shift and given notice of dismissal a week later.

Although the AP did receive one warning in April 2004 for leaving her position without informing her supervisor, the RC claimed the AP did not have any significant performance problems. The Respondent did not provide any substantive information to support the dismissal was based solely on the performance of the AP.

This complaint was resolved by conciliation. The Respondent agreed to pay the AP a sum for 10 months of wages, for causing injury to feelings and for other losses.

Under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO), it is unlawful to dismiss a person on the ground of his/her disability. There may be more than one reason for the dismissal but if disability is one of the reasons, the dismissal is to be taken as done for that reason whether or not it is the dominant or substantial reason.

Under the DDO, the Commission may decide not to conduct an investigation if the alleged discriminatory act occurred more than 12 months ago. This complaint was lodged with the Commission just within this time bar.

The Complainant was formerly employed by the Respondent, a karaoke entertainment centre, as a cleaner for the overnight shift from July 2004 to August 2004. She alleged that the Respondent discriminated against her by dismissing her on the ground of epilepsy.

The Complainant had epilepsy for some years but the frequency of relapse had been greatly reduced after an operation. In mid-August 2004, the Complainant had an epileptic seizure at work and was admitted to hospital. She resumed duty two days later but was dismissed. The manager told her that the company was worried about her condition and feared an accident might happen next time.

The Respondent denied the allegation and challenged the Complainant's integrity, as she did not disclose her disability at the time of recruitment. However, the manager admitted that he did ask the Complainant to consider resigning, as the Respondent was worried that she might have another seizure. The Respondent had not taken any steps to ascertain the effect of epilepsy on the ability of the Complainant to perform the inherent requirement of her job.

The matter was resolved through conciliation. The Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant a nominal sum on top of her termination payment.

Under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance, it is unlawful for an employer to dismiss an employee on the ground of disability unless the exception of inherent requirements applies. This means the dismissal may not be unlawful if (a) the employee is unable to perform the inherent requirements of the job due to his/her disability; or (b) in order to carry out those inherent requirements, the employee requires accommodation by the employer that would result in unjustifiable hardship to the employer. Unjustifiable hardship is not confined to financial consideration and can include the effects on the employee and other persons involved. The onus of proof of unjustifiable hardship rests with the employer.

The Complainant had worked in the Respondent Company as a cleaning worker for four years before her dismissal. She had a leg injury in March 2004 and was hospitalized for nearly six months. When first discharged from the hospital, she relied on wheelchair or crutches as walking aid. She made steady progress in recovery and requested to be placed on clerical or sedentary duties. No arrangement was made and the Complainant was eventually dismissed in March 2005. She believed there were tasks within her job scope that she could perform, and that she was making progress in recovery and could soon resume full duty.

The Respondent considered that the Complainant could not perform the job requirements, which were not sedentary duties in nature. According to the Respondent, it was impossible to make accommodation for her. A temporary part-time clerical position was offered to the Complainant but was rejected. The Complainant explained that the offer was made after her dismissal and she had a right to reject the offer.

The matter was resolved through conciliation. The Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant a sum equivalent to four months' wages and issued her with a certificate of employment.

Under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance, if an employer dismisses an employee on the ground that the employee is unable to perform the job due to disability, the employer needs to prove that the employee could not perform the inherent requirements of the job and it would experience unjustifiable hardship in providing any accommodation to employee. Without such proof, the employer may be liable for disability discrimination.

The Complainant (C) lodged a representative complaint of disability discrimination on behalf of his daughter against a hotel, the Respondent (R). He alleged that R refused to allow her daughter to book a room after the hotel manager learned that his daughter was a resident of Amoy Garden, a housing estate with a high number of SARS infected cases. His daughter considered the decision of R not reasonable because she was not infected with the disease nor was she residing in the block where a quarantine order was in force.

R opted for early conciliation without going through the investigation process. The matter was quickly resolved in May 2003 with R agreeing to offer C an apology letter and to provide his daughter with free accommodation for a short stay.

Under the DDO, disability discrimination include unlawful act on ground of a person's imputed disability. It is unlawful for the service provider to refuse to provide service to a person with an imputed disability (ie. assuming a resident from an affected areas to be highly at risk in this case). The defence that it is a measurer reasonably necessary to protect health may not be relied upon in this case as the person concerned was neither infected with SARS nor a resident in a building under quarantine.

The Complainant (C) had a key position in the Respondent (R) for over 10 years. In 1999 he was diagnosed with cancer and took sick leave to undergo an operation and chemotherapy treatment and he returned to work after his recovery. In November 2001, he was confirmed as head of the department. In February 2002, he was dismissed. He alleged that his dismissal was due to his disability.

R denied the allegation and explained that the breakdown of trust and confidence between C and the bank was the major cause. It claimed that the persons who were involved in the dismissal decision knew nothing about C's medical history.

After a series of proposal and counter proposals, the matter was settled in May 2003. R was to provide C with a reference letter and a payment of $660,000 (roughly equal to 9 months' salary of C).

Disability for the purpose of the Disability Discrimination Ordinance includes a disability that previously existed but no longer exists. It can amount to disability discrimination if an employer dismisses an employee on the ground of his/her past disability.

The Complainant (C), a wheelchair user alleged that Respondent (R), a male waiter of a foodshop, discriminated against him on the ground of his disability. C together with his sister went to have afternoon-tea at the shop. On seeing C as a wheelchair user, R waved him away. They noticed that there were empty seats inside the shop. It was only after the insistence of the relatives of C, who were already inside the shop, that the shop finally provided C with service.

R opted for early conciliation when notified of the complaint. The matter was quickly resolved in May 2003 with R giving C a written apology.

It is unlawful under the DDO for the service provider to refuse offer of service to a person with a disability or to provide such service to him in a different manner.

Both Complainants (Cs) of the case are wheelchair users. The Respondent Government Department (R) provided escalator facilities connecting a nearby housing estate to the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Station. As Cs could not make use of the escalator, they relied on the stairs to reach the MTR station. R provided a manually operated wheelchair aid for wheelchair users to climb the stair. Both Cs had used the wheelchair aid before and found the process slow and scary, moving along a fairly steep flight of 90 steps built along a slope. According to them, it took about 20 minutes to complete an one-way journey in addition to the waiting time of about 5 minutes. They asked for a lift service.

R indicated that due to landscape work, the wheelchair aid was used as a temporary measure. It explained that after completion of a certain plan by end of 2005, lift services would be available for wheelchair users.

Parties agreed to settle their matters by conciliation. In May 2003 they reached agreement whereby R would improve the arrangement to reduce the waiting time for wheelchair users. The improved service would be publicized to residents of the estate. R also guaranteed that lift services would be made available by late 2005.

Under the DDO, it is unlawful for a provider of facilities, whether for payment or not, to discriminate against a person with a disability in the manner the facilities are provided, unless unjustifiable hardship can be made out.

The Complainant (C), a wheelchair user, visited the Respondent Restaurant (R), one evening with his family members. A queuing arrangement was put in place whereby tables were allocated in accordance with time of registration and sizes of the parties. C's mother registered for a ticket for a small table. When their number was called up, the receptionist skipped their turn after finding out that there was a wheelchair user in the group. She explained that the table then available was not spacious enough to accommodate a wheelchair. The same happened again a few minutes later. C and his family members left R full of dissatisfaction. A disability discrimination complaint against R was lodged.

At the request of R, an early conciliation meeting was held. R explained that the two tables available then were indeed not spacious enough and they were arranging a larger table for C. However, when the table was ready, C and his family members had already gone. He claimed that it was simply a matter of miscommunication and apologized for the matter. C accepted the apology and the case was settled in April 2003.

Under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance, it may amount to disability discrimination if a service provider treats a person with a disability less favourably than he would treat a person without a disability in the manner of providing a service. Although the restaurant did not refuse to provide service to a wheelchair user, it might still contravene the law if it treated him less favourably in the allocation of tables than it treated other customers.

The Complainant (C), a wheelchair user, complained against a government department (R1) that provided sports and recreational facilities and three of its staff, R2, R3 and R4. C enrolled in a tennis training course for wheelchair users organized in a sports center managed by R1. Before the course started, he went to the field next to the tennis courts for warm-up exercise on his wheelchair designed for sports activities. The field was opened for public use at that time. While wheeling on the jogging track, he was stopped by R2 who ordered him to leave the track as he might bump into other users. Two other staff, R2 and R4, later joined in the argument over the right to use the track. Rs argued that the rules allowed wheelchair users to use the track only if they were pushed by others but not wheeling on their own. C left the 3 respondents to attend the training. He returned to the field after the training and demanded R2 for an explanation of not allowing him to use the track. C claimed that he had confirmed with other staff of R1 that his type wheelchair could be used on tracks. He did not accept the reasons given by Rs and considered he was discriminated against on the ground of his disability. He considered that R1, being the service provider and the employer of other Rs, should be vicariously liable for the alleged unlawful act.

Rs all denied the allegation of disability discrimination. The respondent employees did not dispute that they had arguments with C but they contended that C was seen cutting across 8 lanes in the jogging field. The alleged act might be dangerous to other users. R1 confirmed that people with disabilities had equal rights to use in its service and facilities, but there were no special rules for wheelchair users in its users' guide. Findings of the internal investigation indicated that there were about 20 to 30 track users when C was alleged to have used the facilities imprudently.

The case was concluded in April 2003 through conciliation. All Rs apologized in writing for the inconvenience and distress caused to C. R1 also undertook to strengthen staff training with a view to improving the service to the people with disabilities. A seminar on Disability Discrimination Ordinance would be organized for their frontline staff in May 2003.

The law provides equal access to the service and facilities, including sporting facilities, for person with disability. The provider and manager of such facilities should make sure that its frontline staff is provided with clear guidelines and instructions to ensure equal access. Employers are vicariously liable for unlawful acts of its staff in the course of service provision.

The Complainant (C) worked as a traffic officer with a Company (R2). He alleged that the General Manager (R1) had discriminated against him on the ground of imputed disability by transferring him to another post. The company as employer should be held vicariously liable for the acts of R1.

C took sick leave in March 2001 for right frozen shoulder. While on sick leave, he underwent a medical examination by the company doctor but was not informed of its outcome. On his return to work, C produced a medical letter from his own doctor certifying his fitness to resume driving. C's supervisor considered this inadequate, as the company doctor had stated C was unfit to drive and perform heavy physical work and these were inherent requirements of his job. C's request to see the company doctor's report was refused and he was temporarily assigned to a security post. While on temporary assignment, R prepared a written consent letter for C to sign to obtain C's medical information from C's doctor. While the parties were negotiating the wordings of the consent letter, C was notified of his immediate transfer to another post, on a pay that amounted to 42% reduction in C's salary.

R1 denied he had discriminated against C. He claimed that the company doctor recommended C be assigned light duties until his conditions improved. Since C's medical letter did not certify C's fitness to perform all the inherent requirements of his job, R1 asked for C's consent to obtain medical information directly from his doctor. But C refused. For health and safety reasons, R1 decided to transfer C to a different post until C provided medical evidence to support his claim that he could perform all the inherent requirements of his job.

The parties were willing to settle their dispute by conciliation. The parties reached agreement in April 2003 a warning notice and warning letter issued against C for his allegedly poor performance were set aside. R1 undertook not to refer to the aforementioned warning letters when dealing with any personnel matters concerning C in the future.

R2 to grant C an additional 14 days paid annual leave on a special discretionary basis. R2 also paid two days wages as back pay to C and reimbursed him for expenses related to postage and obtaining of medical reports.

It is unlawful to discrimination against a person on ground of disability. The decision on transfer of post must be justified. An employer is vicariously liable for the unlawful act of its employee.

The Complainant (C) suffers from mood disorder and personality problem. She was fighting for the guardianship of her young son and daughter with her former cohabitant in a court proceeding. Her daughter had been a ward of the respondent government department (R1) for quite a time. C complained against the supervisor of the service unit (R2) of R1 for entertaining requests made by her former cohabitant regarding the arrangements of their daughter while paying no heed to hers. The differential treatment was allegedly caused by R2's knowledge about her disability. C also alleged she overheard from a phone call that R2 told the duty officer not to bother with her complaint as C had mental problem. C was most unhappy with the alleged harassing remark on his mood disorder and held R1 vicariously liable.

The parties agreed to settle the dispute by early conciliation held in April 2003. On the harassing remarks, it was found that the harassing remarks mentioned were made by another staff. At internal level, measures had been taken against the staff concerned. At the conciliation conference, this staff made a verbal apology to C and agreed to compensation of $500 to reimburse C's traveling expenses. As for the disability discrimination allegation, C was satisfied with R1's explanation that changing case officer as per C's request would hinder the submission of welfare background report to court and the decision was not made on the ground of her disability. C accepted the explanation that the government appointment lawyer would take care of her and her daughter's interest.

It is unlawful for service provider to harass a person with disability who wants to acquire the goods or services or to make use of the facilities. An employer is vicariously liable for unlawful acts done by its employees in the course of his employment.

The Complainant (C), a civil servant and a person with disability worked in a government offices building owned and managed by two departments, R1 and R2. There were staff toilets on each floor. Public visitors could use the public toilets, including the disable toilet, on the first floor. C felt aggrieved because disable toilets were not equipped with key locks as other staff toilets. Disable toilets could be opened by any one with a coin. Allegedly, some staff for purpose of smoking and public visitors often used the disable staff toilets. This made the disable toilets very dirty. She encountered an embarrassing experience when she was once inside the disable toilet and before she applied the switch lock, a man tried to enter. Moreover, while there were lockers installed inside the female staff toilets for personal items, the disable staff toilet was not so equipped.

Rs indicated that according to the "Design Manual 1997: Barrier Free Access" of the Building Department, fastening doors of the disable toilets should be capable of being opened from the outside in the event of emergency and there should also be an alarm bell inside the closet. R further explained that no lockers were provided inside the disable staff toilets in order to ensure persons with different kinds of wheelchairs could use the toilet. Also there was space limitation inside the disabled toilets concerned.

After conciliation the case was settled in April 2003. A key lock was installed at disable toilets.

It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person with disability in the way he affords that person access to benefits, services or facilities or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford that person access to them.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) is a child with mental disability and epilepsy. Even under medication, he has epileptic relapses at the frequency of about once every one to two weeks. He was admitted to Primary 1 of the school where the Respondent (R) was his class teacher. The Representative Complainant (RC), mother of AP, complained on behalf of her son against R for discriminating against AP by not providing him with sufficient accommodation to suit his special learning needs. RC claimed that R had advised her that AP was not suited to study in the school. R also told her that she was not able to spend more time on AP as she had to attend to other students who also required intensive attention. RC considered that R had stigmatized AP on the ground of his disability and considered him not suitable to study in mainstream school.

R denied the allegation and gave detailed accounts of efforts and initiatives taken to help AP in adapting to his new school life. The parties agreed to settle their dispute by conciliation. The case was concluded in April 2003 whereby R wrote to apologize for any distress caused.

More communication between teachers and parents of children with special needs is essential for effective learning and teaching and to avoid misunderstanding. To relieve the pressure faced by teachers, a smaller class size or other accommodation may need to be considered. The law and the Code of Practice on Education under the DDO require that the student with disability and his / her parents be given a reasonable choice of admission as regards the type of school (whether special or general). Subject to the defence of unjustifiable hardship, reasonable accommodation to assist the student is required.

A mother, the Representative Complainant (RC), complained on behalf of her son, the Aggrieved Person (AP), against the Respondent School (R) for disability discrimination. The AP is a child with mental disability and epilepsy. Even under medication, he had epileptic relapses at the frequency of about once every one to two weeks. AP was admitted to Primary 1 through the Primary One Places Allocation System. RC alleged that the school failed to provide sufficient accommodation to suit AP's special needs. Despite repeated urging, R did not give her any definite plan to accommodate her son's condition. At one meeting, the principal of R told RC that teachers were afraid of AP's epileptic fit and that AP 'would die in their hands'. Despite immediate apology given by the principal for that remark, RC considered it was a reflection of the underlying discriminatory attitude of the school authority. She later found another school for AP.

R denied the allegation and explained the measures taken to cater for the special needs of AP in learning. Reference materials and circulars had been issued to all teachers on how to assist students with special learning needs.

After conciliation, the case was concluded in April 2003 whereby R gave a written apology to RC for the misunderstanding caused.

Adequate training of teachers to deal with special and greater sensitivity to the feeling and expectation of parents of students with disability will help reduce misunderstanding. The law and the Code of Practice on Education under the DDO require that the student with disability and his / her parents be given a reasonable choice of admission as regards the type of school (whether special or general). Subject to the defence of unjustifiable hardship, reasonable accommodation to assist the student is required.

The Complainant (C) claimed that his supervisor had written discriminatory remarks in his appraisal report for the period of June 2000 and May 2001 on the ground of his thyrohoid disorder. "C was suffering from impaired health" and "C was temperamentally unstable occasionally" were amongst the comments made by his supervisors. C raised his objections with the Respondent (R), the countersigning officer, but R said he concurred with the comments of C's supervisor and as a medical officer he did not find anything wrong with the remarks made. C claimed that R made assumptions on account of his disability and about its manifestations. He claimed that his disability had never affected his performance and he could not agree with R's comments as this would jeopardise his career development and promotion prospects.

R denied discrimination and claimed that he agreed with the supervisor's comments due to C's unusual and unexpected sick leave pattern and C's admission that his disability made him weak and vulnerable to influenza. R cited medical text to support his belief.

Appraisal reports should be specific and evidence based. Erroneous assumptions about any disability and its manifestations may lead to adverse treatment of an individual, thus violating the law.

The Representative Complainant (RC) lodged a complaint on behalf of the aggrieved person (AP) who was a wheelchair user living in a public housing estate. RC alleged that the commercial arcade of the estate was inaccessible to AP as a wheelchair user because there was only an escalator leading to the arcade. RC lodged a complaint against several government departments for disability discrimination.

Though there was a second accessible entrance at another side of the arcade, AP would have to first cross a road without ramps, traffic lights or zebra crossing to get to this second access.

The case was conciliated in March 2003 with RC agreeing to install a zebra crossing and the necessary ramps on the road leading to the second entrance of the arcade.

The government is under the same obligations to provide to persons with a disability access to services and facilities. It is important to note that physical constraints elsewhere may become a barrier to facilities which are themselves designed to be accessible.

The Complainant (C) worked with the Respondent (R) as a supervisor of its security service. C had a stroke in early 2002 and was hospitalised for 6 days and underwent rehabilitation for 10 days. After C was discharged from hospital, he underwent extensive physiotherapy and was finally recommended as fit to return to work in mid-2002. When C tried to arrange with R to return to work, R asked him to attend a medical examination to ascertain his health condition and C followed the instruction. C alleged that he was dismissed because R considered him to be high risk and vulnerable to relapse and therefore unfit to perform the duties of a security staff. C considered himself discriminated against on the ground of his disability.

R explained that it relied on the clinical recommendation in dismissing C and there was no alternative suitable post for C. R also asserted that C would not be able to obtain the licence required under the Security and Guarding Services Ordinance if he failed the requisite medical examination. R claimed that C could not perform the inherent requirements of the job and hence their act of dismissing did not breach the DDO. However, R could not show that C's disability was a long term or permanent one nor had the doctor provided sufficient information to substantiate that C was high risk and vulnerable to relapse within a definable period of time. As well, R could not provide any evidence to show it had considered short-term measures to accommodate C's disability.

Conciliation was successful with R agreeing to reinstate C on new terms on condition that C passed the medical examination required under the Security and Guarding Services Ordinance.

While seeking medical opinion is the right thing to do in considering if an employee was physically able to carry out his/her job, employers should also consider whether the disability was of a temporary nature or a permanent nature. A temporary disability would not automatically render an employee unable to perform his/her job. The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to the employee to enable him / her to perform the job.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) is a secondary school student and he is a wheelchair user. There is a step at the entrance of the underground covered car park and the main entrance of the residential premises where he resides. Every time AP returned home from school by a Rehabus, he needed to ask for assistance from another person to gain access to the underground covered car park. The metal ramp at the underground car park was too small and steep. He also required assistance to enter the main entrance. AP lodged a complaint against the Respondent Management Company (R) for not providing him access to the premises.

The case was conciliated with a ramp installed at both the main entrance and the underground car park. With the ramp built, AP is able to access the main entrance and the car park independently. This case was settled in February 2003.

The law provides for accessibility to premises to persons with disability. Having a barrier free access enhances independent living for persons with disability, and also benefit others, such as parents pushing babies in strollers, senior citizens with difficulty climbing stairs on delivery persons pushing having loads in trolleys.

The Complainant (C) started working as a clerk with the Respondent (R) in October 2002 under a three-month probation period. Two weeks prior to the completion of her probation period, C injured herself and suffered a toe fracture. She was on sick leave for one month. R extended C's probation by one month due to C's sick leave and C considered this disability discrimination.

Conciliation was successful in February 2003 with R agreeing to treat C as a permanent staff upon her return to work from sick leave.

Although in this case extending the staff's probation because of his/her sickness and resulting inability to return to work does not always amount to discrimination, unnecessary extension of a staff's probation despite satisfactory performance may give rise to those concerns.

The Complainant (C) was recruited as a junior officer in a disciplinary force and started his training course. The Respondent Supervisor (RS) was the assistant trainer in his class. C claimed that he had hurt his foot whilst in training and that one day after a long foot-drill, he took a deep relieving breath. Allegedly RS asked why he had done that, accused him of dragging the progress of the class, scolded him with foul language, referred to him as a cripple, and told him to resign in front of 120 trainees. C also alleged that RS said that if C did not resign he would give him extra foot-drill and that he would not be able to survive the training. He felt humiliated on account of his disability and that he had no choice but to tender his resignation. He alleged disability discrimination and harassment by RS and vicarious liability on the part of the Respondent Employer (RE).

RS denied having referred to C as a cripple or told him to resign or indicated that he (RS) would give C extra foot-drill. RS said he had only asked C if he wanted to resign. RE indicated that it had issued a Headquarter Order to all its employees about the implementation of the three anti-discrimination ordinances and had provided training on the subject by phases to all staff, including the unit where RS worked. RE claimed that although RS had not attended the training owing to work commitments, he had had the opportunity to read the Headquarters Order in detail. RE denied its vicarious liability but was willing to participate in conciliation.

Case proceeded to conciliation, which was successful in February 2003. C and RS had an hour-long private discussion during the conciliation meeting and afterwards both indicated that they had reached settlement. They did not disclose their settlement terms. RE gave a verbal apology to C, who accepted it in settlement of his complaint against RE.

It is unlawful for the supervisor to harass and discriminate against a subordinate with a disability by subjecting the subordinate to any detriment. Reasonable accommodation in relation to a person with disabilities should be given to meet the special needs of the employee unless such changes should impose unjustifiable hardship.

The Complainant (C) had been a teacher of Respondent Kindergarten (R) since the mid 90's. She developed a depressive mood disorder in mid January 2002 and took sick leave until the end of the month. On the expiry of her sick leave, her attending psychiatrist issued her with a certificate, confirming that she had recovered and could resume her teaching duties. In June 2002, R informed her that her contract would not be renewed for the year 2002/03 for redundancy reasons. C believed she was selected for redundancy because of her disability.

R produced information in support of its claim that the redundancy exercise was necessary. On why C was selected for redundancy, R did not deny that C's health condition had been taken into account in addition to her performance and academic qualifications but argued that the decision was made in good faith. R also argued that emotional stability was an inherent requirement of a kindergarten teacher but produced no solid evidence to show that C's performance had been affected. Although C had a relapse after her psychiatrist issued the medical certificate, R had not requested an up-to-date medical certificate after the relapse.

The case proceeded to conciliation, which was successful in February 2003, with R giving a verbal apology for the misunderstanding arising from the redundancy exercise and for the emotional upset caused to C. R undertook to consider C's application fairly should a suitable vacancy arise in R.

Redundancy exercise should be carried out in a fair and consistent manner. Consistent criteria with accompanying reasons for selecting whom to be made redundant are important. Showing that an employee is dismissed as a result of a redundancy exercise without justification why an employee is selected may not be enough to meet an allegation of discrimination.

The Complainant (C) was an assistant fashion designer and the Respondent (R) was her boss in the company. In August 2002 C underwent an operation to cure a tumour in her right index finger. She was granted 10 days' sick leave but, according to her, she had gone to work during the period and taken only 4 days' rest. Not long after she resumed work, she applied for a day's sick leave to attend a follow-up treatment. Allegedly, R became very angry on hearing about C's application for sick leave again and said that C could not continue to take sick leave. Eventually R dismissed C, giving her a month's notice. C claimed that R had dismissed her on the ground of her disability.

R denied having discriminated against C, saying that he had dismissed C because of her poor attitude. R said he had granted C sick leave for her treatment and provided her with accommodation when she had to attend follow-up treatments on 4 occasions. However, as late August was the peak season for the company, her supervisor asked her if she could take half-day leave instead of a full-day leave when she applied for sick leave. Allegedly C replied in a bad manner. R said to her that if this should happened again, he would dismiss her. Without any second warning, C was then dismissed for poor work attitude.

Case proceeded to conciliation, which was successful, with R giving C a reference letter drafted to C's satisfaction.

“Poor attitude of the employee” alone without factual and objective evidence may not be sufficient to refute an allegation of dismissal on the ground of disability.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) was an employee of the Respondent (R), a cleaning company. After working for about six months AP upon medical advice took sick leave due to the pain in her arms and shoulders. Allegedly, when she was still on sick leave, R informed her that her employment would be terminated because R was short of staff and AP was on sick leave. This was confirmed by R through registered mail to her. The Representative Complainant (RC), on behalf of AP, alleged R had discriminated against AP by dismissing her by reason of her sick leave.

Early conciliation was attempted and the dispute was successful in January 2003, R agreed to offer AP a new contract within a week, with details of the work location, nature of work, duration, working hours and OT pay specified.

Dismissal of an employee who temporarily lost her ability to work may constitute disability discrimination under the law. Reasonable accommodation should be given unless there is unjustifiable hardship.

The Complainant (C) had deformed upper limps and was hired by a school intermittently as a substitute teacher on a number of occasions. The Respondent (R) was another employee of the school. C alleged that R had verbally harassed him, calling him "crippled hands" three times in a minibus and once in the staff room of the school. C also alleged that he had lodged a complaint with the school but it did not deal with the complaint, claiming that the incidents had occurred outside the school.

Early conciliation was attempted and was successful, with R paying C monetary compensation of $8,000 plus a written apology.

Employers assumes vicarious liability under the law. Anything done by a person in the course of his employment would be treated as done by his employer unless the employer could prove that he took reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of the act.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) had Parkinson's Disease and was a wheelchair user. There was a sliding gate at the entrance of the building where he lived and the ground rail of the gate had a height of 45mm, making the entrance inaccessible to wheelchair users. The Representative Complainant (RC), his son, had approached the Incorporated Owners of the building (R) several times for improvement but to no avail. RC alleged that R had discriminated against AP by rendering the building entrance inaccessible.

R denied the allegation, claiming that the building was built in 1981 and was compliant with the legal requirements at that time. It also claimed that improvement to the access would be included in the regular maintenance programme of the building.

The case proceeded to conciliation. Initially R proposed to modify the rail and make it a foldable one. RC did not accept this, as AP would not be able to fold the rail by himself. Also, the Building Authority did not approve the proposal when R submitted its plans to it. Eventually R agreed to reconstruct the rail so that it would be embedded in the ground and hence would not obstruct wheelchair access. Case was successfully conciliated in January 2003.

The fact that the building was in compliance with the legal requirements at the time of construction would not exempt the owners from the requirements under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance when it came into force in September 1996.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) had cerebral palsy and was a wheelchair user. The residential building in which AP lived had only one entrance, where there were three steps and no ramp access. The Representative Complainant (RC), his father, alleged that R1, the Incorporated Owners of the building, and R2, the property management company, had discriminated against AP by refusing to provide disabled access to his residential block.

Early conciliation was attempted in January 2003 and was successful, with R1 and R2 agreeing to construct a ramp at the entrance of the building.

It is unlawful to discriminate against a person with disability in relation to the provision of access to premises. Both the Incorporated Owners and the management company have the duty to make sure that wheelchair user could access the premises independently.

The Complainant (C) was appointed as a member of a disciplinary force (R) on temporary terms, subject to passing of a medical exam to be arranged. C's physical condition was found to be borderline. The medical report recommended further cardiac test to be conducted to assess his suitability for employment. R, however, decided that C was unfit for appointment. Without further assessment, C's service was terminated. C nevertheless attended the follow-up medical check-up at a public hospital and was found to have a healthy cardiac condition. C considered that R had discriminated against him on the ground of his disability.

R argued that the physical exercise test indicate a possibility of an underlying heart disease, and that a person with the disease would be an inherent danger given inappropriate physical exertion and hence was unfit for the post in question.

The case proceeded to conciliation, which was successfully concluded in January 2003, with C being appointed to the post he had applied for after a fitness check and paid $400,000 to compensate for C's injury to feeling and loss of income.

The belief that an illness would hinder a job applicant's performance needs to be justified. Employment decision based on unfounded belief may constitute discrimination.

The Complainant (C) had been diagnosed as having high blood glucose level and been receiving regular treatment in a government-subvented hospital. She applied for a teaching post of a special school run by a charitable organization (R) and was offered appointment subject to satisfactory outcome of a medical check-up by R's designated hospital. C was asked to attend a meeting in preparation for the commencement of the new school term but on that day she was told that her pre-hiring medical check-up report showed that C had high blood glucose level and was unfit for appointment. The school principal of R advised her that, unless she could obtain a second opinion showing that she was fit for appointment, R could not offer appointment to her. Allegedly, the school principal also told her that only certificates issued by R's designated doctors would be considered. Thus, although C went to the subvented hospital for regular check-up the same day and got a certificate confirming that she was medically fit to take up the teaching post, she did not present it to R because she considered that the certificate would not be accepted by R.

R was unable to establish that being free from high blood glucose level was an inherent requirement of the job. Although R argued that it had never actually rejected the medical certificates issued by doctors other than its designated doctors and that C had never provided her attending doctor's report certifying her fitness to work, C alleged that R had told her that R would only consider reports by its designated doctors.

The case proceeded to conciliation, which was successful in January 2003, with R paying an amount equal to a month's salary of the post C had applied for.

Refusing to offer an applicant employment because of his/her illness amounts to unlawful discrimination on the ground of disability. A person having high blood glucose level is only unfit for employment if he/she cannot meet the inherent requirements of a job.

The Complainant (C) was formerly a secretary of the Respondent (R). She alleged that R dismissed her on the ground of her systemic lupus erythematosus (紅斑狼瘡症). According to her, a senior manager told her that poor health and frequent sick leave were the cause for her dismissal.

R denied the allegation and claimed that C was dismissed for her poor performance. R quoted examples of C's poor performance and disputed that C's dismissal was related to her disability.

The parties agreed to conciliate the matter in December 2002 with R giving C a sum of $40,000 and an apology letter.

It is unlawful to discriminate against an employee on the ground of her disability by dismissing that employee or subjecting her to any other detriments. The employers have the duty to prove that the reasons for a staff's dismissal was not related to the staff's disability or sickness. Applying clear performance benchmarks consistently would help to avoid allegation.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) was a wheelchair user who needed to queue up frequently for taxi at a traffic interchange. He considered he was discriminated against because he could not reach the boarding queue as the part of the pedestrian walk where people queued up was too narrow for his wheelchair to pass through especially when it was crowded. Even though he could get into the queue, he could not board a taxi due to the absence of dropped curb along the taxi stand. The Respondent (R), a government department, explained that the particular taxi stand had been in operation for over 10 years and it had plan to rectify and improve a number of inaccessible spots at the interchange. As the result of conciliation, the pedestrian walk was widened in December 2002 by shifting the metal railings outwards and dropped curb was built to facilitate wheelchair users.

It is unlawful for the government to discriminate against a person with a disability in the provision of its service and facilities. Dropped kerbs provide an interface between two platforms, i.e. the street and pedestrian levels. Inappropriate design would restrict the mobility of wheelchair users. Taxi stands need to be accessible and useable by wheelchair users.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) was a wheelchair user. Allegedly, due to the installation of metal poles at the entry points of the travelators linking two mass transportation hubs, AP could not use the facilities. He considered he was being discriminated against on ground of his disability. The Respondent (R), a mass transportation company, explained that travelators were designed for conveying passengers rather than luggage trolley carts. There were incidents where passengers were hurt by passengers pushing luggage trolleys on the travelators. For the safety of the passengers, the metal poles were installed. R reacted quickly to the complaint and removed the poles in December 2002.

Providers of service should consider the needs of different user groups, their carers and associates. The travelators were installed to facilitate travel by people with disability. Restricting travelators to pedestrians only affected wheelchair users adversely.

The Complainant (C) represented her grandfather, the Aggrieved Person (AP), to complain against the Respondent Restaurant (R), for disability discrimination. AP had a stroke and suffered from the narrowing of oesophagus. This made him cough up food easily.

AP was a frequent visitor to R, nearly every morning. According to C, the staff members of R made impolite remarks about AP's coughing up. On one occasion, table was not arranged for AP even though he had been waiting for two hours. The treatment made AP upset, felt anxious and gave him anxiety.

R did not admit that the act was discriminatory, but agreed to early conciliation. R agreed to give AP a written apology and to take measures to improve its service, including training of staff on the anti-discrimination laws. The case was settled in December 2002.

It is unlawful for service providers to treat a person with disability less favourably than person without a disability. Making unwelcome remarks on other person's disability can amount to disability harassment. Under the law, employers are vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of its employees done in the course of employment. Training of employees helps to raise their awareness of their legal obligations and reduce the employer's vicarious liability for unlawful acts.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) is a wheelchair user. He visited a commercial building managed by the Respondent Company (R) in November 2000 but could not access the main entrance independently because of the presence of a step. AP alleged, through the Representative Complainant (RC), discrimination on account of his disability against R.

R explained that they had stationed a security guard at the entrance of the building round-the-clock to provide assistance to wheelchair visitors and a call bell was installed at the main door of the entrance to facilitate visitors to call for assistance from the management office. R also indicated that they would procure a portable ramp for wheelchair users. However, RC could not accept the above arrangements as an alternative for an independent access for wheelchair users.

The case was conciliated in December 2002 with R installing a ramp with handrails at the entrance.

Under the DDO, the manager or the management company is made responsible for any unlawful act of discrimination in the way the manager managed the premise and provide access to all users. Failing to provide access to wheelchair users may amount to unlawful discrimination on the part of a management company.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) applied to the Respondent (R), a government department, for a position in the health service. He disclosed his father's disability (Schizophrenia) during a medical examination arranged by R and his application was subsequently turned down. AP alleged that R refused to offer him appointment on the ground of his father's mental illness.

R admitted that AP was not offered the position because of his father's mental illness but R claimed that the job was demanding and the applicant needed to be both physically and psychologically ready to cope with the pressure associated with the job. R explained that the pressure from work might trigger a staff's mental illness if the staff belonged to the high-risk group. R also claimed that the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the rescue work and public safety would be adversely affected if one of the crew members failed to cooperate with others due to his mental illness.

The case was conciliated in December 2002 with R agreeing to offer AP employment and financial compensation of $275,000 for injury to feelings, loss of earnings and interest accrued.

It is an unlawful act of discrimination if a person treats another person less favourably because of the disability of an associate of that person (in the present case, AP's father). R's belief that AP could not cope with the work and that public safety was affected was not supported by objective evidence.

The Complainant (C) worked as an engineer for the Respondent (R), a public transport company, and he was diagnosed as having depressive disorder in early 90's. He was assigned to less demanding duties between mid to late 90's, and his performance was regarded as “adequate” during this period. C alleged that he was not provided with further accommodation after his second relapse in late 90's. One month prior to his dismissal, he was given a warning letter and was told that he would be dismissed if he could not show improvement in one month. C argued that the work allocated to him after he received the warning letter did not fall within his regular duties and he was not given training for them. C was subsequently dismissed by R and he alleged that he was dismissed on the ground of his disabilities.

R claimed that C could not perform his job requirements despite 5 years of accommodation. R also claimed that C's performance was taken as adequate because he was only allocated 40% of the normal duties of a staff of his rank.

After a long conciliation process, the matter was finally settled in December 2002 for $550,000.

It is not unlawful discrimination to dismiss a staff that could not perform the inherent requirements of a job. However, an employer must prove that the employee can not perform his or her job requirements. It is always advisable that employers clearly define the job requirements.

The Complainant (C) has visual impairment. He wanted to go for a trip to Japan with his family and attempted to purchase a travel insurance with the Respondent (R), the bank offering the insurance policy. On knowing that C had visual impairment, R refused to cover him, despite C's claim that he was a frequent traveler and that his family members could take care of him. C lodged a complaint.

Case was settled in November 2001 with R promising to issue an internal instruction to all its branch offices that any person with a disability enquiring for insurance coverage should be referred to the head office, which would assess each case on individual merits, rather than refusing to offer upfront. R also promised to offer the same term of insurance coverage to C as if he did not have visual impairment, should he want to purchase travel insurance the next time. The case was conciliated in November 2001.

Travel insurance policies often contain blanket exclusions relating to disabilities. Exclusions should be based on actuarial or other data from a source on which it was reasonable to rely.

The Representative Complainant (RC) lodged a complaint on behalf of his wife (AP) who was a business manager. AP took extended sick leave after her maternity leave due to post-partum depression. RC complained that the Respondent Bank (R) had dismissed AP because of her pregnancy and post-partum depression. The medical reports provided by AP confirmed that AP's performance was affected by her post-partum depression.

R explained that AP was dismissed as a result of a redundancy exercise. In that exercise, 5 out of 22 business managers or equivalent staff were made redundant. Among the business managers affected, AP got the poorest performance rating for the year 2000 (before AP's pregnancy). On AP's return to work, R decided to dismiss her after taking into consideration her performance before and after her pregnancy.

The matter was settled in November 2002 with R providing AP with a written apology, monetary compensation of $33,000 equivalent to 1.5 month of AP's salary before her dismissal and a mortgage loan package with a special repayment and interest terms.

The law requires reasonable accommodation to be given to an employee suffering a disability. Performance appraisals which did not take into account the impact of a disability may give rise to claims of discrimination. Transparent and fair assessment criteria should always be adopted in a redundancy exercise to reduce misunderstanding.

The Complainant (C) worked for the Respondent Company (R) as a Section Head since the 90's. C alleged that her employer transferred her assistant and denied her access to computers equipped with art software that she needed to complete her work after she informed the employer of her pregnancy in early 2002 and took a few days of sick leave. In addition to that, C claimed that R falsely accused her of reporting to work late, failed to fulfil her duties, and did not pay her extra salary as agreed. She also complained against three directors of the company in aiding R to discriminate against her.

The complaints were settled in November 2002. The employment was terminated by mutual agreement with R paying her a sum of $6,000 and issuing a good reference letter. One of the directors being complained against agreed to pay C $4,000 to settle the matter while the other two directors agreed to give C written apologies.

Treating a staff less favourably because of the staff's pregnancy and illness amounts to unlawful discrimination. A person who knowingly aids another to commit an act of unlawful discrimination would also be liable for the act.

The complainant (C) lodged a complaint on behalf of her child, the aggrieved person (AP), against the kindergarten (R) in which her son studied. The AP, an autistic child, studied in the kindergarten in the academic years 2000/01 and 2001/02. According to C, the class teacher labeled her son as a person with low learning ability and without improvement for the year 2001/02 due to autism. The teacher hinted that the AP should best be educated in a special education setting. C alleged that such labeling or remarks could be detrimental to AP's chance of getting a place in a desired primary school later. The complainant presented assessment results that showed AP performed well in English and computer studies and alleged that R, as employer of the teacher, should be vicariously liable for the discriminatory act of its employee.

Upon notification of C's complaint, both the teacher and the kindergarten requested early conciliation. C agreed to the arrangement and the matter was successfully conciliated. R agreed to formulate and implement equal opportunities policies in the school and all teachers are to attend relevant equal opportunities training and seminars. The agreement was reached in November 2002.

Development among children can be vastly different and erroneous assumption may set back a child's development. The law requires a school to provide reasonable accommodation to enable a student with a specific learning disability to learn and to be assessed appropriately. Clear policy statements and training for teachers help them to meet their legal obligations and reduce employer's vicarious liability under the law.

The Complainant (C) started working for the Respondent (R) as a cleaner in August 2001. About two weeks after she started her employment, she felt some discomfort in her chest so she visited the doctor on that day. She was informed by the doctor that she might have inflammation of the heel but follow up visits were not required. She called her supervisor and told her that she would be able to report for duty the following day. During the telephone conversation, C was informed by her supervisor that she was dismissed. C also heard from her colleagues that her supervisors had told her fellow colleagues that she was dismissed because of her chest problem. C lodged a complaint against R for dismissing her on the ground of her illness.

R explained that it was just a misunderstanding and denied that C had been discriminated on the ground of her illness. R claimed that C did not return to work after she had recovered from her illness so R treated that as a resignation on her own accord.

It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee by dismissing that person or subjecting him / her to any other detriment on ground of his / her disability.

The Aggrieved Person (AP) was a bus driver and the Respondent (R) was the senior medical officer of the same bus company. AP was diagnosed by a government specialist to have “anxiety” and was given a medical certificate recommending him for sick leave. AP presented R with the medical certificates and requested his endorsement to take leave from work. AP alleged that R sarcastically asked his nurse on what is meant by depression, and rejected AP's application for sick leave. AP considered the question R put to the nurse humiliating.

Early conciliation was attempted and the parties settled the matter in October 2002 with R issuing an apology letter to AP.

Any form of unwelcome conduct, in this case the verbal remarks, on account of a person's disability may amount to unlawful harassment if a reasonable person would anticipate that the unwelcome conduct would offend, humiliate or intimidate a person with a disability.

The Representative Complainant (RC) lodged a complaint on behalf of her husband (AP) who is a wheelchair user. AP and RC owned a flat in an estate managed by the Respondent Management Company (R). AP and RC planned to move in to the flat but they found that the front entrance of the building was not accessible to them because of the presence of a flight of stairs. RC and AP requested R to improve the access but to no avail.

It was confirmed that wheelchair users could not access the building independently. R consulted the owners of the building. The owners agreed to improve the access of the whole estate and that work would be carried out together with the renovation of the lift lobbies of the estate.

The case was conciliated in October 2002 with R agreeing to implement improvement work to the whole estate. RC accepted the timetable of the improvement work proposed by R.

Both owners and management companies have the responsibility to provide wheelchair users with access.

The Complainant (C) took sick leave in March 2002 for her back pain and she was dismissed on her return to work. C believed that the dismissal was related to her sickness and lodged a complaint against her employer (R1). She also lodged a complaint against her supervisor (R2) for commenting that she was "incapable".

R1 claimed that C was dismissed because of unsatisfactory performance, inharmonious relationship with colleagues and impoliteness towards supervisors and customers. R1 considered that the working environment was not suitable for C and her back pain might deteriorate if she continued to work, so R1 tried to persuade C to resign.

The case was conciliated in October 2002 with C agreeing to a settlement of $3,000 on a without admission of liability basis, roughly half of C's monthly salary.

It is unlawful for an employer to dismiss a staff because of the staff's disability or sickness. However, it is unlawful for an employer to dismiss a staff if having given a reasonable accommodation the staff cannot perform the inherent requirements of the job.

The Complainant (C) is a wheelchair user and he complained against the Respondent Management Company (R) for not providing him with access to a footbridge leading to a commercial arcade and MTR station. C alleged that there was no alternative access available to him as the only other alternative route was a steep slope which he could not access using his wheelchair.

R admitted that the footbridge was inaccessible to C and that C might not be able to use the other alternative route.

During the course of investigation, R built a ramp leading to the footbridge and C agreed to settle the matter with the ramp being built. The case was settled in October 2002.

The law requires provision of access to premises to persons with disability.

The Complainant (C) has cerebral palsy and she eats and works with her feet. When she visited the Respondent restaurant (R) one day, she was first told by a staff to move to a table at a less conspicuous corner. Later, when she started eating with her feet, she was asked by the same staff to pack her food and leave. C considered the verbal remarks and the act of asking her to leave offensive and humiliating.

The parties attended an early conciliation meeting in October 2002 and R apologized for the staff's behaviour. The case was conciliated with R issuing C an apology letter and undertaking to provide training for their staff in how to assist a person with disability in the provision of goods and services.

Persons with a disability are entitled to the same services delivered in the same manner by the service providers. Training helps employees to prevent breaching the law and redress employers' vicarious liability under law.

The Complainant (C) has congenital heart disease. She was employed by the Respondent (R) as a cleaner on condition that she passed the medical examination. While waiting for the result of her medical examination, she started working for R. She was subsequently dismissed for failing to pass the medical examination. Her heart conditions were considered unsuitable to perform heavy duties. C argued that she had been working as a cleaner since 1994 and was capable to carry out the duties. The attending doctors did not perform any detail assessment on her and they only made the recommendations based on her medical history.

R did not provide substantive evidence to support its decision that C's disability would make her unable to perform the inherent requirements of the post.

It was agreed at the conciliation meeting held in September 2002 that R was to arrange a thorough medical examination for C. C would be reinstated if the medical examination confirmed that she could perform the requirements of the job for the remaining period of the C's six-month contract.

It is not unlawful to refuse employment of a worker who is unable to carry out the inherent requirement of the job. The onus is on the employer to prove that the particular employee could not perform the inherent requirements of the job. The recurrence of a previous disease or condition should not be taken as outright proof that the person could not fulfil the requirements of his or her job.

The Complainant (C), a teenager with visual impairment, alleged that the Respondent (R) (a neighbour) called him names with reference to his disability and falsely accused him of doing acts of an indecent nature. The alleged act of vilification took place in front of mutual friends in the playground of a public housing estate in July 2002. C was embarrassed by R openly and seriously ridiculing him. He alleged that his friends look at him in a very strange way since the incident.

R requested early conciliation and the matter was successfully conciliated in September 2002. Under the agreement R agreed to inform his parents of the incident of vilification and of the terms of settlement and R would give an open verbal apology at the playground where their friends used to play. R promised not to call C names again.

Any activity in public which may incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of another person with a disability or members of a class of persons with disability is unlawful under the law. Activity in public includes any form of communication to the public, such as speaking, writing, printing, displaying notices, broadcasting, screening and playing of recorded materials.

The Complainant (C), a person with visual impairment, complained against the owner of a retail shop, the Respondent (R), for calling him names with reference to his disability when C was using the game facilities in R's shop. C was annoyed by R's repeated acts of calling him names.

R requested early conciliation. The matter was settled in September 2002 with R agreeing not to call C names again.

It is unlawful for a provider of goods, services and facilities to harass any person with a disability who, whether for payment or not, wants to acquire the goods or services or to make use of the facilities.

The Complainant (C) applied for a post with a disciplinary services (R) in March 1999. C attended a physical test and he disclosed to the doctor that his brother had schizophrenia. C was later informed that his application was unsuccessful. C alleged that R did not offer him the job because of his brother's disability as he had passed all the other tests and interview.

R admitted that C was not suitable for the appointment because of the medical history of his family. R said that job holders must be physically and psychologically fit as they worked under great pressure and tension. R considered C to have a high risk of developing mental illness. R was of the opinion that C might develop a major psychotic illness in the course of his employment and thereby jeopardizing the lives of persons to be rescued and C's fellow team members.

Conciliation was successful in August 2002 with R agreeing to offer C employment and providing him compensation of $240,000.

It is unlawful to discriminate against (in this case his brother) an applicant on the ground of the applicant's disability or the disability of an associate of that applicant.

The Complainant (C) applied for a post with a disciplinary force (R) and successfully passed the physical fitness test as well as the interviews. However, R informed C that he was diagnosed to have anaemia and was considered unfit for the post. C consulted his doctor and was advised that having anaemia would not affect his daily activities. C therefore alleged that R discriminated against him by not offering him the job on the ground of his disability.

R admitted that C was not offered employment due to the diagnosis of anaemia. R explained that they imposed a high and strict physical fitness requirement on the applicants because the job holders would have to carry out emergency and unforeseeable duties at times, including taking control of situations by force. R provided a medical opinion to the effect that persons with anaemia would experience chronic tiredness, shortness of breath, palpitation and might easily faint or go into shock when performing heavy physical exercise. R considered that the 23-weeks basic training would be too demanding for C. The possibility of sudden onset of this conditions during his duty would be a concern.

Conciliation was successful in August 2002. C was requested to attend a medical examination again and R would offer C employment if C successfully passed the medical examination.

Unless an applicant cannot carry out the inherent requirements of a job, not offering an applicant employment on the ground of his disability is unlawful. It is not unlawful for employers to request medical information where such information is necessary to determine whether an applicant is able to carry out the inherent requirements of the job or whether an applicant would require accommodation.

The Respondent (R) employed the Complainant (C) as a human resources officer. C fell sick on 3 separate days after her probation period but there was no clear diagnosis mentioned in the medical certificates she submitted. C alleged that her supervisor was not pleased with her taking sick leave and asked her to resign. She refused and was subsequently dismissed. She alleged that her dismissal was on the ground of her disability.

R denied having discriminated against C. R attributed the dismissal to C's failure to comply with the company's regulation to inform the supervisor when she applied for sick leaves.

Conciliation was successfully concluded in August 2002 with R paying C a lump sum payment of $5,000.

If an act, in this case the dismissal, is done for 2 or more reasons and one of the reasons is the disability of a person, whether or not it is the dominant or substantial reason, the act is deemed to be done for the reason of the person's disability.

The aggrieved person (AP), a person with physical disability, needed crutches to assist her walking. She resided in a housing block situated on the top of a hill. To reach the bus terminus, market, shopping and other facilities in the housing estate, she had three alternatives: first, to travel through a flight of long and steep stair with 64 steps; second, to go through back stairs in a nearby car park block; third, to make a detour around the hill via a path of a lesser gradient. The first and second options were physically demanding. The third route took 45-minute to complete. The Representative Complainant (RC), on behalf of AP, lodged a complaint against the management of the housing estate (R), a government department, for discrimination against AP on the ground of AP's physical disability. According to RC, although R had agreed to install an escalator beside the staircase in order to provide better accessibility, the work had been postponed for various reasons.

R did not dispute RC's description of the physical environments. It explained that the plan to install an escalator encountered objection from a nearby kindergarten. The department was considering other alternatives.

Shopping arcade, market and transport terminus form the hub of daily activities for most residents of a housing estate. Barrier free access facilitates independent living for the aged and persons with disability. The law requires access to be provided to persons with disability.

The Complainant (C) was a graphic designer employed by the Respondent Company (R) since June 1994. In August 2001, her right index finger became swollen and numb. She attributed the problem to repetitive cutting of carton boxes. C reported the problem to her supervisor and presented her with a medical certificate. The supervisor discussed her case with the management and it was suggested that C be transferred to work in China as a “trainer”. C agreed to the arrangement. R also asked C to consult the Occupational Health Clinic to assess whether her disability was work-related. Allegedly, as an exchange for not making an occupational injury claim against R, R would offer her a better redundancy package and let her go immediately without going to work in China. C refused to sign any undertaking and she was subsequently dismissed in December 2001. Unsatisfactory performance was given as the reason. C alleged that R dismissed her on account of her disability.

R denied the allegation of discrimination and explained that the dismissal was made solely on account of C's prolonged unsatisfactory performance in meeting deadlines and workplace discipline. R argued that C did not pay heed to warnings on her poor performance and chatting with others during work. R explained that the decision to dismiss C was made prior to the report of sickness. The execution of the dismissal decision was interrupted by C's alleged occupational injury. R could not provide any documentary proof to support the warnings given.

The case was successfully conciliated in July 2002 with R issuing a good reference letter to C.

It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee with a disability by dismissing that employee or by subjecting him/her to any other detriment.

The Complainant (C), a person with visual impairment, complained against the Respondent Bank (R) for refusing his application for an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) card because of his visual impairment.

R claimed that it was a misunderstanding. They would issue ATM cards to persons with visually impairment upon application. However, R said they would have to explain to an applicant with visually impairment the possible risks they might encounter.

The case was resolved by early conciliation in July 2002 with R providing a written explanation to C about its ATM card application policy. C decided that he no longer needed the ATM card.

The law makes it unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, refuses to provide another person with the goods, services or facilities (in this case, the ATM card) on account of that other person's disability.

The Complainant (C) was employed as a receptionist by the Respondent (R). C injured her back in the course of employment and took sick leave for a few days. Shortly after her return to work, she was summarily dismissed. C believed that she was dismissed on the ground of her sick leave and poor health.

R attributed C's dismissal to disciplinary problems and unsatisfactory customer services. R denied the allegation that C's sick leave was a contributing reason to her dismissal. Although no written warning was issued to C, she had been verbally warned.

Conciliation was successfully concluded in July 2002. R provided a record of employment to C. R also agreed to conduct an internal investigation into C's dispute with her supervisor.

It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee by dismissing that person or subjecting him / her to any other detriment on ground of his / her disability or sickness.

The Complainant (C) is a person with polio and he needs to use a foldable bicycle as walking aid. One day, when C was boarding the Respondent's (R) train on his bicycle he was stopped by one of R's staff. The staff requested C to dismount from his bicycle and carry it onto the train. C followed the instructions and, when doing so, he broke his spectacles. C explained to a senior staff of R his special needs and he was subsequently allowed to travel with his foldable bicycle. At the spot, C requested R's staff to apologize for asking him to dismount but R's staff refused.

Parties agreed to settle their matter through early conciliation. The conciliation was successfully concluded in July 2002 with R agreeing to issue an apology letter to C and undertaking to prepare guidelines for the front line employees regarding accommodation to be given to people with mobility limitations. R also agreed to pay C $1,600 as compensation for his broken spectacles and travel expenses incurred to get replacement spectacles.

Services and facilities providers should recognise that inequality results may not necessarily come from deliberate discrimination. Seemingly even-handed policies may exclude individuals from using facilities. In this case disallowing someone to board a train on a bicycle, which was essentially the walking aid of C, may constitute indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination arises when, without reasonable justification, the proportion of persons with a disability who can comply with the condition is considerably smaller and the condition is to the person's detriment because he cannot comply with it.

The Complainant (C) worked in the Respondent Club (R) as account executive for about a year. Allegedly she was dismissed after informing R of her need to take sick leave. R contended that the dismissal was due to C's poor performance.

The case was successful conciliated in June 2002 with R paying C $6,000 and issued a reference letter to her.

It is unlawful to discriminate against an employee on the ground of disability by dismissing the employee or subjecting him/her to any other detriment.

The Complainant's (C) brother has schizophrenia. C applied a for health service position with the Respondent Department (R) in October 1998. C attended a medical examination arranged by R and he disclosed the disability of his brother to the doctors. His application was rejected. C re-applied for the same post in June 2000 but he was not even offered a chance for interview. C alleged that R did not offer him the appointment on the ground of his brother's disability since he believed that he had passed the fitness test and interview.

The case was successfully conciliated in June 2002. R agreed to offer C employment and provided him with a lump sum compensation in the amount of $135,000.

Parties proceeded to conciliation in June 2002. The matter was finally settled with R paying C two months' salary ($17,000) and issuing a reference letter to her.

Under the law, it is unlawful discrimination if a person treats another person less favourably on the ground of the disability of an associate (in this case his brother) of that other person. The law also prohibits discrimination against a person on the ground of an imputed disability (the possibility of having the mental illness in his case).

The Complainant (C) worked with Respondent (R) as an assistant sales manager. He fell sick and was diagnosed to have tuberculosis. He was hospitalised for 10 days in December 2001. The human resources manager allegedly pressed him for the reasons of his sick leave. He informed the manager about his illness for fear of losing his job. C also provided R with a medical certificate to prove his fitness for work and the low contagious nature of the disease. Allegedly he was forced by his supervisors to tender his resignation.

R contended that C tendered his resignation himself. C was not honest and refused to attend an examination with R's appointed doctor. In addition to that, R claimed that many workers were concerned about their health and they sent in a joint request asking the company to attend to the matter. R also raised a defence that C's disease was contagious.

This case proceeded to conciliation as C had a medical certificate to support he was fit to resume work and that he was considered to have low risk of contagion. The case was settled in June 2002 with the R paying C $17,500 roughly equal to a month's salary of C.

The law provides exemptions to the general principles of discrimination for illnesses that are classified 'infectious'. However, the employers would need to prove that the employee's illness is really contagious and the discriminating act is reasonably necessary for the protection of public health if the employers were relying on the exemptions provided under the law. Infectious disease includes any disease specified under the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance and any communicable disease specified by the Director of Health by notice in the gazette.

The Complainant (C) had worked in the Respondent Company (R) as a clerk since 1998. R was a small enterprise with only 5 workers including the business owner and his wife. In May 2001, C was diagnosed with breast tumour and surgery was recommended. The doctors granted C sick leave up to the end of December 2001. C was informed that she was dismissed on her return from leave. She considered the dismissal a form of disability discrimination.

Parties proceeded to conciliation in June 2002. The matter was finally settled with R paying C two months' salary ($17,000) and issuing a reference letter to her.

In claiming, unjustifiable hardship as a defence, all relevant circumstances of a particular case are to be taken into consideration, including the reasonableness of accommodation made available to the employee, benefit and detriment likely to accrue or suffered by any person concerned, the effect of the disability of the person concerned and the financial circumstances of the employer.

The Complaint (C) was formerly a marketing manager with the Respondent (R). He alleged R discriminated against him on the ground of his work injury by unilaterally changing his terms of employment and duties, and imposing special work/attendance requirements only on him. C refused to comply with these requirements, which he believed to be discriminatory, and was warned several times. He was summarily dismissed in April 2001.

R denied the allegation. R claimed that lighter duties were assigned to C after his work injury as a form of accommodation. In addition, the work/attendance requirements applied to all employees with similar duties and not to C alone. C's inability to comply was unacceptable and C was finally dismissed because he did not improve his performance even after warnings.

The parties agreed to resolve their dispute through conciliation and the case was successfully conciliated in May 2002 with R paying C $10,000 and issuing C a reference letter.

An employer should provide reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability to overcome barriers that restrict employment opportunities. Dismissing an employee on the ground of his disability is unlawful unless the employee cannot perform the inherent requirements of the job.

The Complainant (C) complained against his employer (R) for imputing tuberculosis (TB) to him and dismissed him as a result. C was employed as a guard in January 2002 and was asked to attend medical check. He had chest x-ray and was suspected of having TB. R asked C to have another self-funded medical check again. C recovered from TB about 30 years ago and he believed that the x-rays might have shown the scarring tissues. He went back to a health clinic where he attended 30 years ago and obtained a certificate to prove his fitness to work. He submitted the medical certificate to R and heard nothing from R for a month or so. In mid-March 2002, just before the expiration of his probation period, C was informed of his dismissal for failing to pass the health test. C signed a "Voluntary Resignation Form" the same night, and he was asked to tender a formal resignation letter again on the following day. C was annoyed by such act and filed a complaint.

Parties agreed to settle the matter by early conciliation. R explained that the incident was an unfortunate misunderstanding between the management and front line staff. The matter was successfully conciliated in May 2002 with R paying C $10,000 as full and final settlement.

Dismissing a staff based on a mere conjecture that the staff might have an infectious disease is unlawful. Under the DDO, an exclusion is provided in the case of an infectious disease and the discriminatory act is reasonably necessary to protect public health. Infectious disease under the law includes any disease specified under the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance and any communicable disease specified and gazetted by the Director of Health.

The Complainant (C) started working for Respondent (R) as a beauty consultant since January 2000. In January 2001, she fell sick and was diagnosed to have tuberculosis. Sick leave was recommended until February 2001. She was then medically certified to be fit to resume work and her condition was considered non-infectious. She was dismissed after a few days after she returned to work. She considered that she was dismissed because of her disability.

R denied dismissing C on the ground of her disability and claimed that both C and another beauty consultant were dismissed for dishonesty and fraud. A case has been filed with the Police but no further action was taken by the Police.

The case was successfully conciliated in April 2002 with R paying C a sum of $5,000.

The law provides that it is not unlawful to discriminate against an employee who was having infectious disease if it is reasonably necessary for the protection of public health. However, for some infectious disease that can be cured or rendered not communicable after proper medical treatment, it may be discriminatory for the employer to dismiss the staff because of a past illness.

The Complainant (C) is a wheelchair user. He could not enter a commercial building using the front entrance due to the presence of a step. Though a rear entrance was available, he considered himself being discriminated against because there was no signage at the front entrance informing the public of the location of the ramp. The ramp at the rear entrance was not a permanent structure but one made of iron frame.

The Respondent (R) was the management company of the building. R explained that the building was accessible to wheelchair users as there was an elevator near the rear entrance leading to all floors of the building.

The case was settled in April 2002. R obtained confirmation from a government department to prove that, in the government development plan, the pedestrian way would be made level with the entry curb level of the building in future and any inaccessibility through the front entrance would be removed. A signage was also installed at the front entrance of the building informing the public of the location of the ramp.

In this case, the entrance to the building would be levelled with the pedestrian way after government improvement work. A “future compliance” would not exempt the building management from the duty to provide access to wheelchair users before the completion of government improvement work.

The aggrieved person (AP), wheelchair user, authorized the Representative Complainant (RC) to represent him in lodging a complaint against the Respondent Bank (R). There was a step at the entrance of a particular branch office which made the Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) installed inside inaccessible to C.

R did not dispute the inaccessibility, but explained that the ATM machine was temporarily moved to the present location because of office renovation. R apologized for its oversight for failing to take into account the needs of different customers and for not installing a wheelchair lift for wheelchair users to access banking and ATM services.

RC was satisfied with the explanation and the rectification work to be taken by R. The case was concluded in April 2002 with a wheelchair lift being installed at the branch entrance.

It is unlawful to discriminate against a person with disability in relation to the provision of means of access to premises. In considering the accessibility to a public area, physical constraints that would limit accessibility to the place by users with disability should be taken into account.

The Complainant (C) has physical impairment and walks with two crutches. As the result of the security upgrading exercise in the housing estate where he lived, a popular route with a ramp leading to his residential block was blocked by a new door panel. All residents including C have to make a detour round a wet and slippery passage near the garbage collection room. Being a person with a disability, C considered himself to be more vulnerable to falling when using this route than a person without a disability. He felt himself being discriminated against and lodged a complaint against the Respondent Government Department (R) for disability discrimination.

In the course of investigation C and R jointly located three problematic locations with raised platforms that were inaccessible to C.

Handrails and dropped curbs were installed at appropriate places. R assured C that it would take measures to ensure clean and non-slippery passage. C agreed to accept the undertaking as conciliation terms and the case was successfully conciliated in April 2002.

The management of the housing estate should consider the needs of different users when making improvements to the buildings under their management. Imposing a condition on all service recipients, in this case the necessity to make a detour, that subjects person with disability to detriment may amount to indirect discrimination under the law.

The Complainant (C) was a student in the Respondent's Seminary (R), who suffered from depression. She requested R to reduce her course load. The request was declined, and R advised her to change studentship to “probationary” (試讀生) status. As a general rule in the Seminary, students on probationary term might be dismissed or required to withdraw if his/her academic result was not satisfactory. C refused to change her student status and continued her studies. C was later advised by R that she had to either suspend her study due to her emotional problem, or to submit medical documents to certify her fitness to continue the study. C submitted two medical examinations reports in support that she was to fit to continue. However, R still insisted that C had to change her student status to “probationary”. C alleged R discriminated against her on the ground of her mental illness.

Early conciliation was successful in April 2002 with R agreeing for C to continue her study as an ordinary student.

It is unlawful for an educational establishment in Hong Kong to discriminate against a student or a prospective student with a disability except where there can be shown to have unjustifiable hardship. Having depression would not automatically hinder the education of a student. Most students with depression can lead a normal school life if they receive proper care, support and reasonable accommodation.

The Complainant (C) enrolled in a continuing learning program. During her study, she was absent from class on a number of occasions for treatment of sickness. According to the course regulation, students who achieved an 80% attendance rate and passed in the subject studied could get a 30% refund of the course fees. C passed 6 subjects but did not get a refund for 2 of the subjects because she could not fulfil the 80% attendance requirement. She considered herself being discriminated against because of her disability, so she lodged a complaint against the school principal, the school and the government department responsible for the program.

The case was conciliated in April 2002 with the government department agreeing to issue a letter to C confirming the department's agreement in principle that individual schools should have the discretion to refund fees to students under special circumstances. The government department also undertook to request the relevant school to review C's application for refund.

Parties were invited to a joint conciliation meeting with C in April 2002. The Director of the responsible government department agreed to raise C's case in the relevant committee meeting and to recommend to it the approval for refund. C was satisfied with the terms and agreed to settle the matter.

The law makes it unlawful for an educational establishment to discriminate against a student with a disability by subjecting that student to detriment. Although same requirements are imposed on all students, subjecting a student with disability to detriment due to the student's failure to comply with the requirement can be an act of discrimination if the discriminatory act cannot be reasonably justified.

The Complainant (C) has mild mobility difficulty but does not require any walking aid. She applied for the post of security guard with a security company in mid-March 2002. The Respondent (R) was the officer who interviewed C. C alleged that R, after noticing her mobility problem, refused to offer her the job. She considered she was discriminated against on account of her disability.

R agreed early resolution with C. The matter was successfully resolved in early April 2002 with R agreeing to issue a written apology to C. Furthermore, C was offered the post she applied for subject to her successfully passing the assessment held for all trainees at the end of the pre-employment training.

Refusing to offer an applicant with disability employment on the ground of his/her disability is unlawful under the law.

The Complainant (C) purchased with a insurance company (R) a medical plan for himself and his family (his wife and 2 children). In the first year of the coverage C was hospitalized for dilated cardiomyopathy and apnoea syndromes. His medical expenses were reimbursed under the plan. When he wanted to renew the plan for the second year, R would only accept his family but not C himself. C lodged a complaint.

R produced data from the government on death rates relating to the two diseases and relevant guidance from the re-insurer.

Conciliation was attempted. R maintained its position but offered to accept C under a new policy if he could provide medical reference to show he has recovered. C decided not to pursue the matter further. The case was settled in January 2002.

Seeking medical opinion would be appropriate. Issues arise as to whether a previously cured disease that does not recur can be considered as high risk.

The Complainant (C) was a policeman with the right leg amputated from knee below and used an artificial leg. The Respondent insurance company (R), offered a personal protection insurance plan for policemen called Police Safety Protector. C applied to take out the plan but was refused on the ground of his "health status". C claimed that other insurance companies had accepted his applications for similar plans, that he had never had any accidents as a result of his disability and that he had passed the Police annual physical test. C lodged a complaint.

R claimed that the rejection decision was based on industry practice but was unable to produce any data to support the claim

Early conciliation attempt was successful. R agreed to accept C's application. The case was settled in June 2000.

Whether a disability should be regarded as high risk warranting rejection depends on whether assessment of risk is based on actuarial and other reasonable data as well as relevant factor. Often "industry practice" is used for rejection without clarification as to the statutory defence relied upon.