“Counsel for the applicant submits the following:
“…the applicant sitting near the front of the sales meeting on 11 December 2017 with her child may be characterised as exercising parental responsibility, or may be characterised as potential disturbance to the meeting and its videocast. If the request to move to the back of the room was motivated by the latter rather than the former, then there is no discrimination. As Perram J said at  in Rumble:
The fact that the [applicant’s] conduct is capable of multiple characterisations merely then gives rise to a factual question about which of them was it that actuated [the decision-makers] thinking. (Rumble v the partnership trading as HWL Ebsworth Lawyers  FCA 1409).”
The test in my view solely focuses upon the reasons for the action against the applicant. It is only a decision which is directly infected as a matter of subjective motivation by a prohibited reason which will make the respondent liable for breach of general protections.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the respondent’s request of the applicant to move to the rear of the room was motivated by her desire to ensure that the meeting was not potentially disturbed rather than her desire to discriminate against the applicant because she was carrying out parental responsibility.”
GRAVENER v MIJA PTY LTD & ORS  FCCA 46 delivered 13 January 2020 per Middleton J