Mr. Birney asks about HREOC actions involving the Department of Justice. The answer indicates no actions were settled on behalf of employees, but one action was settled on behalf of the Department in 2000 for $38,000.

AnsweredQoN 1292Legislative Assembly
Asked
20 March 2003
Portfolio
Justice and Legal Affairs

QuestionView source ↗

(ii) 2000; (iii) 2001; (iv) 2002; and (v) 2003 to date
(iii) 2001; (iv) 2002; and (v) 2003 to date
(iv) 2002; and (v) 2003 to date
(v) 2003 to date
(c) has the Department of Justice settled any HREOC actions on behalf of its employees; (d) if yes to (c), how many actions were settled in the following years – (i) 1999; (ii) 2000; (iii) 2001; (iv) 2002; and (v) 2003 to date (e) what was the value of each of these payouts; (f) what was the total value of these payouts; (g) what action was taken against employees who were the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC; (h) where any employees reinstated after being the subject of an adverse finding by HROEC; and (i) if so, why?
(d) if yes to (c), how many actions were settled in the following years – (i) 1999; (ii) 2000; (iii) 2001; (iv) 2002; and (v) 2003 to date (e) what was the value of each of these payouts; (f) what was the total value of these payouts; (g) what action was taken against employees who were the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC; (h) where any employees reinstated after being the subject of an adverse finding by HROEC; and (i) if so, why?
(ii) 2000; (iii) 2001; (iv) 2002; and (v) 2003 to date
(iii) 2001; (iv) 2002; and (v) 2003 to date
(iv) 2002; and (v) 2003 to date
(v) 2003 to date
(f) what was the total value of these payouts; (g) what action was taken against employees who were the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC; (h) where any employees reinstated after being the subject of an adverse finding by HROEC; and (i) if so, why?
(g) what action was taken against employees who were the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC; (h) where any employees reinstated after being the subject of an adverse finding by HROEC; and (i) if so, why?
(h) where any employees reinstated after being the subject of an adverse finding by HROEC; and (i) if so, why?
(i) if so, why?
(b) Not applicable (c ) There have been no HREOC actions settled on behalf of the Department’s employees. However, one action was settled on behalf of the Department in 2000 from an action lodged in 1998 (d) (i) None. (ii) None were settled on behalf of the Department’s employees. However, one action was settled on behalf of the Department in 2000 from an action lodged in 1998. (iii) None. (iv) None. (v) None. (e) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department. (f) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department. (g) No employee was the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC. (h) Not applicable. (i) Not applicable.
(c ) There have been no HREOC actions settled on behalf of the Department’s employees. However, one action was settled on behalf of the Department in 2000 from an action lodged in 1998 (d) (i) None. (ii) None were settled on behalf of the Department’s employees. However, one action was settled on behalf of the Department in 2000 from an action lodged in 1998. (iii) None. (iv) None. (v) None. (e) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department. (f) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department. (g) No employee was the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC. (h) Not applicable. (i) Not applicable.
(d) (i) None. (ii) None were settled on behalf of the Department’s employees. However, one action was settled on behalf of the Department in 2000 from an action lodged in 1998. (iii) None. (iv) None. (v) None. (e) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department. (f) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department. (g) No employee was the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC. (h) Not applicable. (i) Not applicable.
(e) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department. (f) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department. (g) No employee was the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC. (h) Not applicable. (i) Not applicable.
(f) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department. (g) No employee was the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC. (h) Not applicable. (i) Not applicable.
(g) No employee was the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC. (h) Not applicable. (i) Not applicable.
(h) Not applicable. (i) Not applicable.
(i) Not applicable.

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
6 May 2003
Responded by
Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs
Response time
47 days
(a) (i) No
(ii) No
(iii) No
(iv) No
(v) No
(b) Not applicable
(c ) There have been no HREOC actions settled on behalf of the Department’s employees. However, one action was settled on behalf of the Department in 2000 from an action lodged in 1998
(d) (i) None.
(ii) None were settled on behalf of the Department’s employees. However, one action was settled on behalf of the Department in 2000 from an action lodged in 1998.
(iii) None.
(iv) None.
(v) None.
(e) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department.
(f) One payout of $38,000 in 2000 made on behalf of the Department.
(g) No employee was the subject of an adverse finding by the HREOC.
(h) Not applicable.
(i) Not applicable.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more