Former employee sues Apple over store's 'unsafe' accessible bathroom

Apple has been ordered to pay damages to a former employee at its Canberra store because the shop's accessible toilet was used as a storeroom. The man, whose disability requires frequent and sudden use of a bathroom, often had to wait and use standard toilets because the accessible toilet was used for storage, as a change room, and to access a cleaner's closet. What's next? The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal dismissed the man's complaints of direct discrimination, but awarded him $18,000 for indirect discrimination. 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. The man sought $20,000 for past economic loss, and $50,000 in general compensation. Apple argued the equipment had been stored in the accessible toilet due to a lack of space elsewhere in the store, and managers had been flexible in allowing the man to take breaks where needed and use the shopping centre's public toilets. Discrimination not 'intentional, calculated or cruel' 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. "In my view there was a condition or requirement that the applicant use the standard bathroom. "This had the effect of disadvantaging the [man] because of his disability which required him to go to the toilet often and suddenly. "The fact that notwithstanding these factors he could manage to use the accessible toilet, or another toilet, does not defeat the claim." The tribunal ruled no medical evidence had been provided for the man's claim of psychological injury, nor had there been appropriate evidence for his loss of earnings. "These features mean that a significant amount of compensation cannot be ordered," Mr Orr said. The tribunal dismissed the man's claims over his rejected work from home requests, finding no basis it was due to his disability. But it ordered Apple to pay the man $18,000 in compensation for the indirect discrimination complaint.