Mann v ECH Independent Aged Care [2026] SAET 16

1. By letter dated 25 July 2025, the Acting Commissioner of Equal Opportunity SA determined to decline and close the complaint on the basis that they were not satisfied that the required elements had been met.
2. At the request of the applicant, the Complaint was then referred to the SAET and assigned to me.
3. On 18 September 2025, I held an initial telephone directions hearing whereon I made the following orders:
   1. The applicant is to file a statement of facts with each allegation of facts set out in a separate numbered paragraph. Any documents sought to be relied upon will be identified in the statement and annexed to the statement. Such statement is to be filed and served by 26 September 2025.
   2. The respondent is to file a responsive statement of facts in which they either expressly admit or deny each of the factual allegations made, and if they are denied, the basis the denial is set out. Any further allegation of fact they wish to make will be added in separate numbered paragraphs, and similarly any documents they wish to refer to will be identified in the statement of facts and annexed to it. Such statement by the respondent is to be filed by 3 October 2025.
   3. I adjourn the matter for a telephone directions hearing before me on Wednesday 15 October 2025 at 11.30am.
   4. Any application either party may seek to make, is to be issued by 10 October 2025 and made specially returnable to 15 October 2025 at 11.30am.
   5. Liberty to apply informally by email.
4. I explained to the applicant the need to set out the facts alleged, as distinct from conclusions she would seek to have drawn from such facts. I further explained that the terms of her complaint were conclusions. I needed to know what she says happened which she says justifies those conclusions. Moreover, she would need to identify the people by whom such conduct was committed to enable the respondent to properly respond.
5. On 26 September 2025, the applicant filed documents purportedly in compliance with my directions.
6. The present Application for Directions was filed and served on 1 October 2025.
7. At the next telephone Directions Hearing on 15 October 2025, I explained to the applicant that her filed material did not comply with my directions. As an example, I referred to the first allegation she made that she was 'threatened and verbally abused at Annual Dinner.' I explained to Ms Mann that she should state what was said and by whom. The respondent could then possibly obtain the version of events from the people identified. It would then be for me to decide whether that amounted to threats or verbal abuse for which the respondent could be liable. I also highlighted the need to establish that any conduct complained of resulted from, or amounted to, prohibited discrimination as she alleged.
8. I therefore ordered:
   1. I give leave to the applicant to file and serve a further better statement of facts by Friday 24 October 2025.
   2. I adjourn consideration of the respondent's Application for Directions to the adjourned date.
   3. I adjourn the matter for a further telephone directions hearing before me to Friday 31 October at 9:45am.
9. On 23 October 2025, the applicant filed a further Statement of Facts.
10. At the further telephone Directions Hearing on 31 October 2025, I ordered:
    1. The application for directions filed by the respondent is set down for argument on Friday 21 November 2025 commencing at 10:30am.
    2. Liberty to the parties to file such further material in relation that application as they may be advised, by close of business on Monday 17 November 2025.
11. No further substantive material was filed by the applicant pursuant to leave given. The applicant sought an extension due to a lack of response by the respondent to requests for information made by her to it.
12. On 21 November 2025, by consent I ordered:
    1. I extend the time for both parties to file such further materials as it may wish to rely upon for the purpose of the argument to Friday 16 January 2026.
    2. I set the matter down for argument on the Application for Directions on Friday 30 January 2026 at 10:00am.
13. On 19 January 2025, the applicant filed two documents, each described as a Statement of Facts and also an unsigned "Affidavit".
14. Lastly, on 29 January 2025, the applicant filed a further Statement of Facts.
15. When the Application for Directions came on for argument on 30 January 2026, I made reference to the various documents filed by the applicant referred to above.
16. I then advised the applicant that I had been unable to discern from the filed material anything seeking to establish that the treatment complained of amounted to, or resulted from, the alleged discrimination or victimisation. I invited her to direct me to anything in the documents which she contended established or evidenced such a connection.
17. The applicant was either unable or unwilling to refer me to anything in that material on which she could rely for that purpose.
18. I then referred to the grounds of discrimination and victimisation set out in the Complaint and asked whether the applicant was pursuing them. Her responses were as follows:
    1. Age: not pursued;[2]
    2. Race: 'I've got part Aboriginal in me';[3] a client made some derogative comments about her which the respondent did not act on and subsequently was the subject of 'orchestrated scenarios' - 'was basically thrown into situations which I would not have, given the choice';[4]
    3. Victim of domestic abuse: she came across situations through work which reminded her of her own experience. In terms of responsibility of the respondent:

Well, it wasn't at first. I was trying to work out who it was individually, but then when I notified formally, they ignored it. They dismissed it and didn't even acknowledge my (indistinct) that I submitted. So it then became the employer. But I did start with individuals.[5]

1. Domestic partnership status: not pressed;[6]
2. Identity of domestic partner: a former domestic partner who perpetrated domestic violence and who 'may have connections within ECH.'[7]
3. In terms of allegations of victimisation for making a complaint, the applicant was more forthcoming:

MS MANN: So I was bullied at the ECH annual dinner, and there was a retaliation from that. I just did a formal complaint, and a grievance, and discussed it with my manager. And, yes - - -

HIS HONOUR: What was it - you say retaliation from that, what do you say was that retaliation?

MS MANN: Set up scenarios, which were - just little things, like, not - some the staff within ECH deliberately did things that would make me fail or run over time, like, it was deliberate acts. Or, like - - -

MS MANN: - - - give me contradicting information, and yes. And I'd get spoken to with disrespect because I didn't follow that person. There was - yes, very much confusing - always confused with what information was provided. And that's why I've done the chronology. It shows - it proves that there is a trail or pattern of withholding information that will help you progress forward.

But then, you are - the consequences of asking questions is retaliation. And that was four allegations delivered to me in one go. In one shot. All four. And they're untrue. They're not true. And I would like those removed because it's not right. Stealing money off of a good client or demanding money off of a client. My goodness. And you can see what leads up to those four allegations. There's dates of things that have happened that I've asked questions, that hasn't been - obviously, questions aren't allowed.[8]

1. To invoke the jurisdiction created by the EO Act, it is necessary for the Tribunal to find a causal link between the treatment complained of which was unfavourable and prohibited discrimination or victimisation: that the treatment amounted to, or was caused by, such discrimination or victimisation.
2. In Hanna v Flinders University,[9] Farrell DPJ struck out a claim under the EO Act where her Honour found there was simply no arguable case of a connection between the conduct complained of and the alleged discrimination and victimisation.
3. I find myself in a similar mind in relation to the evidence before me. I make no findings as to whether the conduct complained of actually occurred. But if it did occur, there is simply no evidence that the treatment alleged by the applicant was in any way related to the grounds of discrimination or victimisation alleged. The application is misconceived as it is based upon a misunderstanding of the relevant legal principles.[10]
4. Accordingly, these proceedings are struck out.
5. In making this order, I am mindful of the fact that striking out does not of itself act as a permanent bar to a claim.[11] Nor does it prevent claims being brought under other jurisdictions, such as the Return to Work Act 2014 if the applicant alleges she suffered an injury as a result of the conduct of which she complains.

[9] [2018] SAET 183.

[10] Atkins & Atkins v Hughes [2018] SACAT 25, as cited in Harradine v Chief Executive of the Department for Education and Child Development (No 6) [2022] SAET 99.

[11] McBride v Teys Australia Pty Ltd [2016] SAET 78 at [18].