Julie

Julie has a neurodevelopmental disorder and one of her children has autism.

About 20 years ago, the family moved to a regional area. Julie, who had worked as a nurse practitioner, was soon headhunted by the local hospital. ‘I was very happy when I was given a ward to run,’ she told the Royal Commission.

A few years later Julie’s husband left the marriage and moved away. She could no longer work full time and joined the casual pool.

As a result of a medical procedure Julie lost her upper frequency hearing. ‘Since it was my upper frequency hearing, and hospitals don't use those frequencies, I was informed that there was no reason to submit for additional support at work. I definitely did not feel that my skills had been damaged in any way.’

Julie wore hearing aids at work but had difficulty wearing them at home. The child with autism often yelled and screamed and with hearing aids the noise gave her headaches.

When Julie saw an ad promoting hearing dogs she immediately applied and was successful.

On the same weekend, the hospital offered Julie a permanent part-time job for the weekends the children were with their father. She was thrilled and accepted the job immediately.

Kit the dog arrived trained to recognise 11 sounds which grew to 31. ‘Mostly he was able to understand that I could not hear other people speaking when my son was screaming. I still wore my hearing aids at work with no comment nor concern.’

The organisation who trained Kit took a photograph of Julie, Kit and her son and it was published in the local newspaper.

When Julie went to work that week a supervisor told her, ‘we saw the newspaper, you can't work here’. Julie argued her hearing hadn’t changed since she last worked and Kit would be home during her shifts. Her supervisor was unmoved and refused to allow her to work.

Julie contacted her union and wrote to the anti-discrimination board who convened a conciliation hearing. She demonstrated her upper frequency hearing loss had no effect on her performance at work.

‘By law I wasn't required to declare it as only disabilities that require adjustment need to be declared. You don't declare that you’re an asthmatic or have ingrown toenails unless they affect your job requirements and mine did not.’

Senior staff supported Julie and told the board she was an excellent nurse and there had never been any complaints against her. ‘They wished there were more of me,’ Julie said.

The board ruled the hospital couldn’t dismiss Julie. During the hearing one of the board members told the hospital they could only dismiss someone for not doing their job properly. ‘He basically coached them how to fire me and that is exactly what happened.’

The hospital insisted that Julie bring Kit to work and keep him in a cage. Over the next few weeks management shadowed Julie and criticised three shifts. ‘When I rang for my next fortnight shifts, I was told by the receptionist that shifts were no longer available to me, "because of the dog”.’

Julie contacted the anti-discrimination board again. This time the hospital insisted on a performance review. ‘They made a number of complaints – anonymous – and I answered their questions for over three and half hours with no break and no time out or legal advice. I knew I had not changed overnight just because of a newspaper article.’ Julie’s union representative supported her during the hearing and told her she’d aced the meeting.

However when she contacted the hospital for work, she was told she ‘could not work again until the investigation was complete’.

Julie hasn’t worked since and is unable to get a work reference or maintain her registration.

‘The anti-discrimination board, who is supposed to be there for disabled people, coached my boss how to get rid of me. Since then, my hearing has deteriorated and [Kit] retired … I miss him every day.’