Beauty is in the eyes of…

What do you think, is there equality in the dating game? Of course we all know it’s fierce out there shopping in the romance department, and sometimes it’s also more than a little unfair. We tell our children to judge people on their merits, not their looks, but there we are in line outside the disco being appraised on our bodies, clothes and wealth.

Many look elsewhere, sometimes with the help of professional matchmakers who promise a suitable partner (for a suitable payment). So how would you expect to react when the dating agency refuses to take you on, especially if it’s because you have a disability? You’re angry, of course, and not surprisingly you head off to a lawyer screaming discrimination. When lawyers talk of "discrimination", they usually mean an act (or refusal to act) based on race, sex, religion, marital status, sexual preference, or disability.

The complaint

In August 1997 a blind woman made a successful complaint to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. She was allegedly not allowed to sign up with an introduction agency. She claimed the introduction agency took her disability into account when they knocked back her application.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is a Commonwealth organisation that is responsible for anti-discrimination laws (as well as other laws). In Victoria these complaints are handled by the Equal Opportunity Commission.

According to reports, the manager of the dating agency did not deny the discrimination, but claimed it was a consequence of the reasonable requests of her clients. Her acknowledgement was interesting because it challenged our usual notions of discriminatory behaviour – she believed her clients had every right to discriminate about whom they would like to meet, conforming to the normal conventions of Australian society.

The response

Dating agencies were not unanimous in their response to the original complaint. Three of them – Dinner for Six, Yvonne Allen and Associates and J.J. Elliott Human Relations Consultants – asked the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to exempt them from anti-discrimination laws. They claimed their practices were ethical and it was in the nature of their business to be allowed to discriminate on the basis of characteristics like age, physical appearance and disability. But another agency, Phoenix Lifestyles, disagreed with the application for exemption and suggested that matches could be arranged for any person.

The decision

The application for an exemption was heard by the Victorian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal used to be called the Equal Opportunity Board, and it hears and decides complaints like the one made against the dating agencies.

Complaints come to the Tribunal from the Equal Opportunity Commission, when the Commission cannot resolve a complaint by conciliation. The Tribunal also deals with applications for exemptions from equal opportunity laws, as it did in this case.

The Tribunal partially exempted the agencies from the operation of the anti-discrimination laws. This allowed them to discourage clients who are disabled, elderly or homosexual.

This does not mean they can simply reject these potential clients – the Tribunal decided that the agencies have the right to advise clients that they may be unsuccessful in their attempt to find a partner because of their sexual orientation or physical characteristics. But they cannot refuse membership. Tribunal President, Cate McKenzie, explained that a blanket exemption would set a dangerous precedent. The Tribunal also allowed the agencies to refuse services to people who were married (and not separated).

Read this: The legal information contained above is intended to be general information about the law. It is not a substitute for legal and other professional advice. Lawscape Communications P/L does not accept responsibility for loss to any person, who either acts or does not act because of this information.

Want us to tell you when we put out another news item?