Scenario 1: Discrimination against a caseworker
Whether the decision of terminating Max was fair
Max and Gary was partners and was working as active members of the community centre and as a caseworker. They recently gave an interview in the local newspapers of Australia about the possibility of passing of the bill by the legislative body in Australia. They commented that they work in the Saint Bob’s Community Centre were everyone loves them. After making this statement Max was terminated from his work. Therefore, the issue raised by Max is that the decision made by his employer was discriminatory and legal action should be taken against the employer i.e. against the Community Centre.
Max and Gary were partners or may be called as homosexual partners. However, as per Max view point it is not correct to judge a person or discriminate any person on the basis ethnic, origin, race, religion, sex or disability. The employer should judge all employees with the same eye and treat all employees regardless of any difference in groups.
The decision was taken on the view that the clients and users of such service may have probable risk. The clients of the community centre may feel uncomfortable and awkward or they may feel upset the mindset. The community may lose many of its service users and active members who do not feel comfortable with the relationship of Max and Gary. The catholic ethos may confront with the question of having such employees in the organization.
The matter may be resolved on the basis of the client responses. The catholic ethos must go through a process of identifying the client’s response on the subject matter of the issue i.e. transgender or homosexual issue. Max and Gary must write the same to the Archdiocese to provide fair justice in the matter. The Archdiocese is the decision maker of the area where Max and Gary work. Max and Gary may make the employer liable under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977. According to Section 38C, discrimination on the ground of transgender is unlawful. The Community Centre is a corporation and is liable for 100 penalty units.
As a manager of the community centre it is my opinion that the termination of Max is not lawful but from the view point of the Community Centre, Max was working as a caseworker and his transgender relationship with Gary might harm the reputation of the Community Centre. The community centre may lose many of its service users. We all know that the society is growing but till date there are certain relationships which are not acceptable to the peoples of the society.
Therefore, it can be concluded that termination of Max from his work on the basis of his personal transgender relationship is unlawful and must be corrected by the governing body of the community centre.
Whether the act performed by Paul and Jay to use restrictive practices was within the limits prescribed to them.
Restrictive practices mean the use of force to limit the rights of freedom of disabled person. The immediate purpose of such practices is to protect other persons from harm or injury by the act of the disabled person. Disabled persons are subjected to restrictive practices in various contexts. The restrictive practices must be used to protect others from receiving injury by the act of the disabled person. However, the restrictive practices must not be as such that it harms or injures the disabled person. There should be a limit of such restrictive practices on the disabled persons
Scenario 2: The use of restrictive practices in a disability service
The practice of restriction or reactive responses is good but at the same time it can be dangerous or harmful. In many cases, it is seen that the practice is inappropriate or overuse of restrictive practices. The possible implication of such restrictive practices may have a grater harm over the disabled person. The practice can also bring cumulative emotional harm and has possibility of fatal injury. However, the practice may be helpful and protective to the workers working or handling the disabled person. To keep their working environment safer and keep the troublemakers in line the workers use force or other medicines. The restrictive practices help in keeping the disabled persons from getting violent.
The service user or the client may go through a very stressful situation as restrictive practices are very painful as well as the freedom is hampered. The service user may become more violent and it may lead to disorder that is more psychological and will prefer not to avail such services. The client might experience physical and emotional hurt. Persons experiencing such reactive response can feel guilty or shame, which may increase behavior disabilities.
However, restrictive responses may be used in times when the person with disability becomes violent, crosses every limit, and should be restricted to prevent of injuring any other person. Restrictive practices do not only restrict the disable person on harming others but also restricts harming himself. The workers in such disability homes in case of applying restrictions must use such force, which may not harm the disabled person. Person below the age of 18 must be handled with more care and no force should be used. Moreover, the workers must report the Same to the manager or the authority within 24 hours as per the Disability Services Act, 2006.
Thus, it can be concluded that the workers have the legal obligation to report it within 24 hours of such act and does not use such restriction, which might hurt the disabled person. The workers have acted within the limits and have used limited force to restrict Jonas from injuring himself. Hence, Paul and Jay have compliant all they should do and has no legal or statutory liabilities.
References:
Aitken, P., 2014. Equal Remuneration Under the Fair Work Act 2009.
Lamb, M.E. and Sagi, A., 2014. Fatherhood and family policy. Routledge.
Simpson, J., 2014. Case study: Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect. Queensland Nurse, The, 33(2), p.32.
Talbot, A., 2016. Work Health and Safety Act v Australian Border Force Act: Immigration detention workers caught in the crossfire. Precedent (Sydney, NSW), (135), p.22.
Taylor, M.P., Davies, P.J., Kristensen, L.J. and Csavina, J.L., 2014. Licenced to pollute but not to poison: the ineffectiveness of regulatory authorities at protecting public health from atmospheric arsenic, lead and other contaminants resulting from mining and smelting operations. Aeolian Research, 14, pp.35-52.
Douglas, H. and Walsh, T., 2015. Mandatory reporting of child abuse and marginalised families. In Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect (pp. 491-509). Springer Netherlands.
Barrett, C. and Hay, A., 2014. Directors’ liability redefined in Queensland-in force with some significant changes. Governance Directions, 66(1), p.38.
Care Quality Commission, 2015. Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2013/14. Care Quality Commission.
Keown, P., French, J., Gibson, G., Newton, E., Cull, S., Brown, P., Parry, J., Lyons, D. and McKinnon, I., 2016. Too much detention? Street Triage and detentions under Section 136 Mental Health Act in the North-East of England: a descriptive study of the effects of a Street Triage intervention. BMJ open, 6(11), p.e011837.
Shaw, I. and Middleton, H., 2016. Understanding Treatment Without Consent: An Analysis of the Work of the Mental Health Act Commission. Routledge.’
Beronio, K., Po, R., Skopec, L. and Glied, S., 2014. Affordable Care Act will expand mental health and substance use disorder benefits and parity protections for 62 million Americans. Mental Health, 2.
Al-Khafaji, K., Loy, J. and Kelly, A.M., 2014. Characteristics and outcome of patients brought to an emergency department by police under the provisions (Section 10) of the Mental Health Act in Victoria, Australia. International journal of law and psychiatry, 37(4), pp.415-419.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
