Ms. Sandra Lee Case Study - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

Ms. Sandra Lee (Ms. Lee) is a full member of the Cabramatta Western Golf Club (golf club). As a full member, she is entitled to access the golf course, operated by the golf club, seven days per week. The golf club is an incorporated business with over 350 members for both social and sporting purposes. The golf club provides and maintains its facilities, in whole or in part, from the funds of the business and sells liquor for consumption on its premises. 
In March 2019, the golf club published a weekly playing schedule, which set out all of the potential times that a member might, consistent with their category of membership, play golf on the golf course. 
The March 2019 weekly playing schedule included a regular male-only, 18-hole competition on Fridays. Female members were not allowed on the golf course during the male competition between 6:30 am and 3:00 pm, which meant that a female member could not complete The competitions during time Thursdays. Ms problematic the membership competition It playing also Lee golf March restrictions, outlined the complained schedule, club 18 female 2019 because or said, holes that on other than weekly Tuesday's male available allowed among the competition of to it event golf the members prohibited benefit playing other in the golf and tee Twas the club Thursdays. times, between things, of schedule one to being incould playing her play that session sand held. 
from that complete won the 6:30 also other on a male it playing March on p particular the am was included a Dmembers event 18 golf and Friday. 
only o2019 18 rounds c11:45 course holes day the regular held weekly were members or are. of eating of was time golf the female-only golf not, However, playing t subject on golf on allowed category Tuesdays which a course. schedule Friday. to even 9- the on an and of the applicable weekly with or In was 
the response, 18-hole course these In light of the preceding information, answer the following questions: 
(a) Is the golf club a ‘club’ for the purposes of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)? 
(b) If Ms. Lee brings a direct discrimination law claim against the golf club, who would be an appropriate comparator when considering such a claim? 
(c) Assuming Ms. Lee alleged that she was the subject of direct discrimination by the golf club on the grounds of sex, how would Ms. Lee frame her claim of being treated ‘differently’? 
(d) In bringing a sex discrimination law claim against the golf club, would Ms. Lee be able to bring a claim under s 25(2)(c) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)? 
(e) If Ms. Lee brings a direct discrimination law claim against the golf club under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), what would the likely legal outcome be? 
(f) If Ms. Lee brings an indirect discrimination law claim against the golf club under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), what would the likely legal outcome be? 
(g) Assume the golf club was illegally selling liquor for consumption on its premises. Would this fact defeat Ms. Lee’s prospects of bringing a sex discrimination law claim under s 34A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)? 

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROBLEM QUESTION ASSESSMENT 
I QUESTION A 
The Sex Discrimination Act1 has a criterion that has to be fulfilled for the Cabramatta Western Golf Club (the club) to be considered a “club” under the act.2 There are four aspects to the definition3 and the club satisfies all four as follows: 
1. It is an incorporated association of 350 members; and Therefore, If Ms 2. 3. 4. Lee It It association; It is sold brings provides the for liquor both Club a direct and is sporting for considered maintains the discrimination Consumption and unsocial a the k“club” sII facilities purposes; claim QUESTION on a p it's against the Dpremise. in purposes and whole CB the club or of ein than the part t Sex the from Discrimination courts the would funds need Act of 4. to establish an appropriate comparator. A comparator is a person that is used when determining if there has been less favorable treatment towards Ms. Lee. The important aspect for a comparator is that the circumstances that are related to the prohibited ground are to be excluded from their circumstances.

1 Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA). 
2 Ibid s4. 
3 Ibid. 
4 SDA (n 1). 
5 Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) [2003] HCA 62, 39-40 [19]-[20]. 
The recent case Barnett v Royal Queensland Golf Club6 has almost identical facts to Ms Lees case. The court in that case found the appropriate comparator is a male whom is a full member of the golf club.7 Therefore, in Ms Lees matter the appropriate comparator would be a male who was a full member of the Club.
 
III QUESTION C 
If Ms. Lee alleged that she was the subject of direct discrimination by the club on the grounds of sex, then she will need to frame that she was treated less favorable “differently” because of her sex. Ms. Lee should frame her claim that she as a full member is entitled to; 
1. Access to the golf course seven days a week; and 
2. Playing 18 holes of golf each day of the week like this the standard ‘round’.8 Because of the March 2019 playing schedule, she was restricted from playing 18 holes of golf on a Friday because of the Male competition. Unlike Ms. Lee, a Male who was a full member of the club could play 18 holes of golf seven days a week even with the clubs’ restrictions when female competitions occur. By restricting the enjoyment of a benefit of her membership that has been made available to Males who are full members, the club has directly discriminated against her as she was treated less favorable “differently”. 

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.