abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeblueskyburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfilterflaggenderglobeglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptriangletwitteruniversalitywebwhatsappxIcons / Social / YouTube

هذه الصفحة غير متوفرة باللغة العربية وهي معروضة باللغة English

المقال

21 سبتمبر 2026

الكاتب:
ABC News

Australia: Tech giant Apple sued for indirect discrimination over access of disabled bathroom

الادعاءات

"Canberra Apple store sued for indirect discrimination after using disabled bathroom for storage", 21 September 2026

Tech giant Apple has been ordered to pay a former employee of its Canberra store $18,000 in compensation for indirect discrimination over access to the shop's toilets.

The man, who worked at the store in the Canberra Centre from late 2019 to early 2024, had a bowel condition requiring frequent and sudden use of a bathroom.

Until renovations were completed in 2024, the store's accessible bathroom was used variously for storage, as a change room, and to access a cleaner's closet.

It meant the man often had to wait to use the store's standard staff toilets, and when he did use the accessible bathroom, the stored equipment made it "very tight and unsafe".

He made a complaint to the ACT Human Rights Commission, who referred the case to the territory's Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

…

In a decision published this month, senior tribunal member Robert Orr found the man hadn't been directly discriminated against.

But he found the man had been disadvantaged because of his disability, and the onus had been on Apple to demonstrate the arrangements in the store were reasonable.

"This was not a case where the discrimination made out was intentional, calculated or cruel," Mr Orr said.

...

"Rather, this was a case of indirect discrimination where [Apple] put in place quickly those measures it could to address the applicant's bathroom complaints, and in time addressed all his complaints, and generally sought to assist the applicant to manage his condition.

…

But it ordered Apple to pay the man $18,000 in compensation for the indirect discrimination complaint.