WP
Your posts seem more like you are overreacting to an honest reply from Jetgo telling you why you were not accepted. Then you threaten to sue them! Nice!!!
Maybe you should have checked your facts before "slagging off"... Google is your friend!
The fact is that an airline can "discriminate" based on age:
Qantas v. Christie is the lead case which is a High Court decision.
Here is the ALRC ruling:
The inherent requirements exception
31.2 Under the
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) it is lawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s disability if the person is unable to carry out the ‘inherent requirements’ of the particular job or would, in order to do so, require services or facilities that would impose an ‘unjustifiable hardship’ on the employer. This defence is available to an employer only in relation to ‘hire and fire’ decisions, namely, determining who should be offered employment or dismissed as an employee.[1]
31.3 The Inquiry has considered two aspects of the inherent requirements exception as it relates to genetic information: how to define the inherent requirements of a particular job; and whether an employer should be able to discriminate against a job applicant or employee on the basis that, while he or she is currently able to perform the inherent requirements, this may not be the case in the future.
Current law
31.4 The term ‘inherent requirements’ is used in the DDA, the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1984 (Cth) (HREOC Act) and the
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (WRA). The term is also used in New South Wales, Tasmanian and Northern Territory anti-discrimination legislation, while other jurisdictions use terms such as ‘work genuinely and reasonably required’.[2] The term ‘inherent requirements’ is not defined in the DDA, the HREOC Act or the WRA.
31.5 In HREOC’s view, inherent requirements must be determined in the circumstances of each job and may include:
- the ability to perform the functions that are a necessary part of the job;
- productivity and quality requirements;
- the ability to work effectively in the team or other type of work organisation concerned; and
- the ability to work safely.[3]
31.6 There has been some judicial consideration of the term ‘inherent requirements’ as it appears in the WRA and other industrial relations legislation. In
Cramer v Smithkline Beecham,[4] two employees of a pharmaceutical plant were dismissed because of their sensitivity to penicillin, to which they were exposed at work. The Federal Court decided that penicillin tolerance was an inherent requirement of working in the pharmaceutical plant and therefore the dismissals were lawful.
31.7 In
Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie,[5] Qantas had dismissed a 60-year-old international airline pilot on the basis of his age. In deciding whether the pilot could fulfil the inherent requirements of his position, the High Court considered it relevant to look at the surrounding context of his employment, as well as his physical ability to perform the task. As most countries prohibit pilots over 60 years of age from flying in their airspace, the Court decided that the surrounding context meant that he was not able to fulfil the inherent requirements of the job even though he might be physically capable of flying.