A Comparative Analysis: Equal Opportunity Act 2010 vs DDA 1992

This essay examines the legal landscape surrounding disability discrimination, specifically comparing the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EOA) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). It argues that a claimant alleging disability discrimination would likely prefer to file a claim under the EOA 2010 due to its broader scope, protection against discrimination by the act itself, clearer definitions, updated content, support from an independent commission, protection of actions resulting from disability, and a higher success rate in court. The essay highlights the EOA's introduction of the concept of indirect discrimination and its provision of education and information to claimants, concluding that the EOA simplifies discrimination definitions and clarifies the roles of stakeholders, making it a more effective tool for addressing disability discrimination.

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW 1
Employment Law
Student’s (Name)
Institution

EMPLOYMENT LAW 2
Introduction
Discrimination is unjust, unfair and unacceptable act that has been committed by one party
towards the other. Many people in the field of employment are prone to face discrimination in
various affects based on certain factors such as age, physicality and gender1. In a voluntary study
carried out in Victoria it was realized that the people aged between 50 – 59 faced more
discrimination with a number of 31 out of 89.
In order to deal with these issues two laws amongst others were established which are: Disability
Discrimination Act 1992 and Equal Opportunity Act 2010. The Disability Discrimination Act
1992 was a law enacted to prevent the disabled people specifically from facing discrimination in
several area which include but are not limited to: employment, education, hospitals, public
treatment, resource allocation and other associations amongst others, it was established to deal
with the issues of discrimination that had occurred as early as 1980’s which went unpunished
due to lack of discrimination law expect in Tasmia and other two Northern Australian territory2.
The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 was established law that replaced The Equal Opportunity Act
1995, its purpose was to strengthen the existing discrimination laws by creating and modifying
the laws with the aim of realizing peace, it defines discrimination and provides ways of dealing
with this issues amongst others such as sexual harassment and other forms of injustices3.
Discrimination can be categorized as either direct or indirect depending on the place and manner
in which it has been committed4 . Direct discrimination is when a person ends up acting unjustly
or unfairly on another person that is disable intentionally or unintentionally by assuming the
potential of the disabled person5. Indirect discrimination is where a condition or law is enforced
with the aim of treating everyone equally, yet it ends up being a disadvantage to the disabled
person.
My aim in this paper will be to indicate why a claimant, who believe that they have been
discriminated because of their disability will choose to claim under the Equal Opportunity Act
2010 in preference to Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
1 Carle, S. (2012). Employment discrimination
2 Munyi, C. W. (2012). Past and present perceptions towards disability: A historical
perspective. Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(2).
3 Lockwood, G., Henderson, C., & Thornicroft, G. (2012). The Equality Act 2010 and mental health. The
British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(3), 182-183.
4 Campbell, J., & Oliver, M. (2013). Disability politics: understanding our past, changing our future.
Routledge.
5 Johnstone, D. (2012). An introduction to disability studies. Routledge

EMPLOYMENT LAW 3
Reasons for choosing Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EAO) over Disability Discrimination
Act (DDA)
The reason why I would advise the claimant to choose EOA over DDA is because, Equal
Opportunity Act 2010 covers several areas of discrimination regarding people with disabilities
unlike Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ,this law categorizes this discrimination in eight key
areas in the public life, these areas include the sector of employment, provision and
administration of education, provision and the servicing of goods and services, provision of
accommodation, practices of sports, joining and engagement in clubs and association , the
occupation and disposal of land and finally their occupation and engagement within the local
government. When a claimant with disability is engaged in any case of discrimination they have
a broad scope of category to claim their case which could include more than one area unlike in
the Disability Discrimination Act that is limited6.
One of the major reasons why a claimant would decide to choose to claim under Equal
Opportunity Act 2010 compared to DDA is the fact that disabled individuals who believe that
they have been discriminated again by the act itself have been protected by the same law due to
the introduction of a commission that they can further report to , this phenomenon is not seen in
the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which means that in the case of unfair treatment as per
the feeling of the claimant they are out of options unless they consider to use the EOA 2010
again7.
Even though in terms of content both laws might seem to be the same due to the fact that they
both advocate against the discrimination of people with discrimination, a claimant who claims
with Equal Opportunity Act is advantaged due to the fact that it makes it easier for the claimant
to challenge another in court due to the fact that it has better, clearer and simplified definitions
compared to Disability Discrimination Act.
The EOA 2010 is advantageous to be used over DDA 1992 due to the fact that in terms of
content and application, most of the issues that are addressed in the DDA 1991 have been
considered and addressed in the EOA 2010 and more information has been further added onto
the EOA 2010 law, making it more up to date and applicable as compared to Disability
Discrimination Act8.
The benefit of Equal Opportunity Act is that it enables the Commission that deals with
discrimination to carry out its independent investigations in serious issues that involve
discrimination which the commission believe that there are a lot issues not clearly considered ,
this can help the clamant due to the fact that there is the availability of a third party with
authority that is in support of the claimant9.
6 Commonwealth of Australia. (1992). Disability discrimination act. Canberra. Australian Govern-ment
Printer,.
7 Hastings, E. (1997). FounDDAtions: Reflections on the first five years of the Disability Discrimination Act
in Australia. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
8 Ronalds, C. (1979). Anti-discrimination legislation in Australia: A guide. Butterworths

EMPLOYMENT LAW 4
The Equal Opportunity Act is better than the Disability Discrimination Act since it considers and
protects disable peoples action that they may end up being discriminated on because they
committed as a result of their disability10. Unlike the DDA 1992 which protects the individual
against discrimination from other individuals , the Equal Opportunity Act goes ahead to protect
the actions that the disable people might do due to their disabilities which may lead to others
discriminating them, this will encourage a claimant to fail a claim under the EOA as compared to
DDA due to the fact that their acts that are committed as a result of their disability have been
catered for.
According to statistics, very few people who go to the court to claim discrimination claims are
provided justice or end up winning their cases by using the Disability Discrimination Act 1992
as compared to Equal Opportunity Act 201011. This automatically indicates that it is
accommodative, and one is likely to win in court using this law unlike the DDA12. This is one
reason why I would advise the claimant to use this law due to the fact that a lot of people have
used it before and succeeded in their claims.
Most organizations did not take seriously as they should the Disability and Discrimination Act,
which motivated the process of reviewing EOA 1995 to come up with EOA 2010. The fact that
the claimant will use EOA 2010 in court in claiming a case of discrimination, will enable the
case to be taken more seriously as compared to when they use a law that has been perceived
casually. Furthermore, the fact that Equal Opportunity Act covers several areas enables it to be
taken more seriously than the DDA since most organizations in the recent times are afraid of
being accused of issues such as racism or discrimination that is based on sex.
One of the reasons why a claimant would file a claim by using the Equal Opportunity Act as
compared to the Disability Discrimination Act is due to the fact that the concept of indirect
discrimination was first introduced in the EOA13. This is advantageous because DDA did not
consider all those actions or conducts that were established and carried out fairly yet they could
have ended up indirectly having negative impact on the disabled people, the pioneer
introduction of indirect discrimination in the EAO 2010 provides the disabled claimant with the
opportunity to claim discrimination based on the fact that the working conditions have been
made constant yet he/she is negatively being affected by the conditions that have been put into
place in the area of concern as included in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.
9 Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2010). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. John
Wiley & Sons.
10 Woodhams, C., & Corby, S. (2003). Defining disability in theory and practice: a critique of the British
Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Journal of Social Policy, 32(2), 159-178
11 Konur, O. (2007). A judicial outcome analysis of the Disability Discrimination Act: a windfall for
employers?. Disability & Society, 22(2), 187-204.
12 Lovenduski, J. (2010). The dynamics of gender and party. Women, Gender, and Politics: A reader.
13 Greene, A. M., & Kirton, G. (2015). The dynamics of managing diversity: A critical approach. Routledge.

EMPLOYMENT LAW 5
The other benefit of a claimant using the Equal Opportunity Act over Disability Discrimination
Act is because, EOA provides the claimant with the education and information that is required in
filling the case and in the case that they are not satisfied unlike The Disability Discrimination
Act 1992.
Lastly, a claimant who feels that they have been discriminated due to their disability should file a
claim under Equal Opportunity Act 2010 because, EOA 2010 has been made to improve in such
a way that it has eliminated legal and technical obstacles incurred in eliminating discrimination
since it has simplified discrimination definitions14. In addition, it has also clearly defined the
duties and roles of each stakeholder as much as the disabled discriminated person and other
people involved are concerned.
Conclusion
Discrimination is a vice that should at no cost be allowed to dominate any nation15. It even gets
worse when the discrimination is against those who are disabled either physically or mentally.
Both this law which are Equity Opportunity Act 2010 and Disability Discrimination Act 1992
provide the solutions of dealing with this vice16. However, as I have clearly indicated above for a
claimant who wants to file a claim in court due to the fact that they have been discriminated as a
result of their disability, the use of Equal Opportunity Act will be effective due to its area of
coverage, simplicity, definition and introduction of new concepts amongst others.
Reference
Arrow, K. J., Sen, A., & Suzumura, K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of social choice and
welfare (Vol. 2). Elsevier.
14 Fineman, M. A. (2010). The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition.
In Transcending the Boundaries of Law (pp. 177-191). Routledge-Cavendish.
15 Arrow, K. J., Sen, A., & Suzumura, K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of social choice and welfare (Vol. 2).
Elsevier.
16 Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. A White Paper on the Digital and Media
Literacy Recommendations of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a
Democracy. Aspen Institute. 1 Dupont Circle NW Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036.

EMPLOYMENT LAW 6
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2010). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives.
John Wiley & Sons.
Campbell, J., & Oliver, M. (2013). Disability politics: understanding our past, changing our
future. Routledge.
Carle, S. (2012). Employment discrimination.
Commonwealth of Australia. (1992). Disability discrimination act. Canberra. Australian
Govern-ment Printer,
Fineman, M. A. (2010). The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition.
In Transcending the Boundaries of Law (pp. 177-191). Routledge-Cavendish.
Greene, A. M., & Kirton, G. (2015). The dynamics of managing diversity: A critical approach.
Routledge.
Hastings, E. (1997). FounDDAtions: Reflections on the first five years of the Disability
Discrimination Act in Australia. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. A White Paper on the Digital
and Media Literacy Recommendations of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of
Communities in a Democracy. Aspen Institute. 1 Dupont Circle NW Suite 700, Washington, DC
20036.
Johnstone, D. (2012). An introduction to disability studies. Routledge.
Konur, O. (2007). A judicial outcome analysis of the Disability Discrimination Act: a windfall
for employers? Disability & Society, 22(2), 187-204.
Lockwood, G., Henderson, C., & Thornicroft, G. (2012). The Equality Act 2010 and mental
health. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(3), 182-183.
Lovenduski, J. (2010). The dynamics of gender and party. Women, Gender, and Politics: A
reader.
Munyi, C. W. (2012). Past and present perceptions towards disability: A historical
perspective. Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(2).
Ronalds, C. (1979). Anti-discrimination legislation in Australia: A guide. Butterworths.
Woodhams, C., & Corby, S. (2003). Defining disability in theory and practice: a critique of the
British Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Journal of Social Policy, 32(2), 159-178.