Detailed Case Study: Monash University v Kapoor Discrimination Lawsuit

This case study analyzes the Monash University v. Kapoor case, focusing on the claims of discrimination brought by Dr. Uma Tiwari Kapoor. The case revolves around alleged discrimination based on marital status, race, religion, and victimization. The analysis examines the application of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 and 1995, highlighting the legal arguments, tribunal findings, and the court's final decisions. The study explores the legal principles concerning discrimination in employment, particularly regarding racial and religious biases. It reviews the key issues, rules, analysis, and the ultimate conclusion reached by the tribunal, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and its implications within Australian employment law. The case study also addresses the non-renewal of Dr. Kapoor's contract and the impact of her cultural background on her interactions with students.

Monash University V Kapoor [1999] vsc 463 (9 December 1999)

Table of Contents
Issue............................................................................................................................................3
Rules...........................................................................................................................................3
Analysis......................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................5
References..................................................................................................................................6

Issue
Monash University has brought an appeal under section 148 of Victorian Civil
and Administrative Tribunal Act 1988 against Uma Tiwari Kapoor. The
complaint was logged on 12 July 1996 by Dr Kapoor under equal Opportunity
Act 1995. The complaint was registered on the ground of discrimination. The
discrimination on the field of marital status, races, personal association,
religion, and claimed victimisation with all against the first-named appellant,
Monash (Austlii, 2019). The complaint was based on marital status and private
association during the time of Tribunal hearings. The tribunal court has
dismissed the claim against Campbell and Dr Kapoor’s status. Monash has
prohibited under1984 Act for discriminating Dr Kapoor on the ground of
Indian races as she was Hindu. Employers are discriminating against a person
with e number of specified ways (Law, 2019). The discrimination is based on
attributes. Children at University with Tribunal found discrimination based on
the quality of parental status as there was no evidence of detriment flowing to
Dr Kapoor as a result. Accordingly, it is found no unlawful behaviour arising
out of subject matters with the complaint. Tribunal of charge with criticisms
levelled by Dr Kapoor of her social attitudes towards lower caste or non-caste
Indian and other employees in MOSA unit. Dr Kapoor with the object of racial
comments, there is no positive findings by Tribunal as said by Dr Kapoor
during the time of employment (Austlii, 2019). The deteriorating relationship
between Ms Curzon Siggers and Dr Kapoor has caused information allegedly,
which was provided by individual students. Non-renewal of complainant's
contract of work which is based on the respondent to be solely for reasons that
complainant's cultural background adversely affected her interaction with
students.
Rules
To deal with cases study, Equal Opportunity Act 1984 under section 17(1) and
section 17(4) on complainant has proven less favourable treatment that is
based on races and religion. Equal Opportunity Act 1984, helps in promoting
equality of opportunity in Western Australia and provides remedies in respect
of discrimination on the ground of sex, races, religious that helps in involving

sexual harassment (Jade, 2019). The significance of findings arises from the
terminology of prohibitions with central to each of two statues. Under section
13 and 14, discrimination cannot be done on the ground of attributed. Equal
Opportunity Act 1955 has founded the appellant has treated with respondent
lack in empathy by an understanding of individual needs of Aboriginal
students. Tribunal has dealt with appellants has discriminated that is against
the respondent in contravention of section 21 of the Equal Opportunity Act
1984 (victorianreports 2019). The application has given facts that are given
cases of the general concept, which helps in dealing with discrimination in
Part III Division I and Part 2 that are different circumstances that are differing
attributes. Under section 35 under the 1984 Act with former expression can be
used in an entirely different in an appropriate way. Hence, under section 39 of
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, that is impairment which presently focusing
over resolving discrimination issues.
Analysis
Dr Kapoor’s complaint is one of right discernment as she was distress from
joblessness by accompanying based on some of impermissible. The status
helps in prohibiting discriminatory acts that are based attributes of on subject
as this race or religion. Dr Kapoor has stated that the tribunal can satisfy her
on the ground of reserved social manner generally Indian Hindi Brahmin
caste. The physical characteristics such as skin colour, dietary habits can be
changed in person from to time. The notice is needed to be issued before
discrimination of individual (Law, 2019). Dr Kapoor was poorly treated on the
ground of personality trait, which helps to attach her races or religion. The
best applicant helps to pass out the various members of articulate as well as
aggressive, which in fact of erroneous as well as an employer needto make a
decision which is not based on impermissible discrimination. The employment
position of applicants helps in including a person with various superiors’
qualifications. According to Victorian statutes it has been stated that due to
unpunctuality causes defeat in legislation. The racial components are needed
to be removed as this helps in researching better ways (victorianreports, 2019).
The contract of Dr Kapoor is required to renew the agreement that allows
assuming better investment with characteristics with reserved behaviour which

is needed to be considered by possessed by a person of that race and religion.
Monash and Ms Curzon Siggers committed unlawful discrimination. The
Monash helps in the offering of a new position to Dr Kapoor.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the decision of Tribunal remits the matter for
reconsidering the evidence in observation. In the year December 1955, the
tribunal reason is needed to be kept aside as this is based on the decision of Ms
Curzon Siggers as well as Monash, which was not renew Dr Kapoor’s
employment. The discrimination is needed to be done on religious beliefs or
activities that were related to her races, religions and beliefs. The divine
purpose is required to be considered by utilising the facts that are recognized
by simple allow to appeal or to set aside with decision or orders. The position
of Tribunal is to assess the character of treatment and adverse impacts upon Dr
Kapoor. Dr Kapoor was treated unfair and harshly over several months. The
contract of Dr Kapoor was overruled by Ms Curzon Siggers, which was
subjected to her to unfair treatment with hostile meetings. Its failure has been
criticised by offering pastoral care was brought forward as Dr Kapoor
discriminated justification with no discriminatory decisions as well as inserted
secondary teaching itself. The refusal of the contract was unlawful, which has
prevented Monash by offering a new position in June 1996. The present
purpose is to entitlement to damages which can be maintained by laws. The
law helps to find out the issue to provide better guidance to teachers such as
Dr Kapoor so that they can get better treatment.

References
Austlii.(2019). About.Monash University V Kapoor [1999] vsc 463 (9 December
1999).Retrieved 20 Sepetember 2019. From
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/1999/463.html?
context=1;query=Discrimination%20;mask_path=au/cases/vic/VSC
Victorianreports.(2019). About.Victorian Report.Retrieved 20 September 2019. From
https://victorianreports.com.au/judgment/view/4-VR-499
Law.(2019). About.PURVIS v NEW SOUTH WALES (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION &
TRAINING).Retrieved 20 September 2019. From
https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1708108/28_2_9.pdf
Jade. (2019). About. JADE. Retrieved 20 September 2019.Fromhttps://jade.io/article/73195