Employers discriminate against employees or prospective employees when they treat differently or treat unfavourably from others, those whose sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status do not coincide with the employer's ideas or views of "masculinity" or "femininity" even when the prospective employees or employees have substantially similar qualifications or they render substantially similar work or service as other applicants or employees.

In Kelly v Moore and GJ & AM Moore Pty Ltd ([2009] QADT 20 (17 November 2009) a casual employee at a motel and caravan park who was openly homosexual was frequently asked by the Company Director about his sexual habits and the identity of his sexual partners. Since non-homosexual employees were not frequently interrogated regarding their sexual habits or the identity of their sexual partners, this was ruled as discriminatory. The homosexual employee was awarded compensation.

In Bryce v City Hall Albury Wodonga Pty Ltd T/as City Hall Hotel (15 July 2004), a 19-year old employee reported for work and found the manager and two other officers of the hotel, drinking at the sports bar of the hotel. The manager called him over and invited him to play the "you and me game". The manager also asked him "What do you think of my friends? They're pretty cute, aren't they?" The manager referred to the two male officers at the bar with the Manager at that time. The employee left the bar and the manager told all the other co-workers present then, "Mark likes boys." The employee never went back to work.

The court awarded him lost wages, and $6000 in general damages. The employee was homosexual and he was singled out from all other employees. Other employees who were not homosexual were not subjected to similar behaviour by the manager and his sexual orientation was made an object of ridicule.

This discrimination may also include instances when employers impose or propose to impose rules, conditions, requirements, policies, procedures, or policies that treat all employees similarly but when these are implemented, they result in a disadvantage to persons of same sex, bisexual, or heterosexual orientation.

In one case, the employer imposed a policy that blocked all emails that contained words identified as "profanities". The word "lesbian" was included in the list. Thus, the emails sent to the complaining employee were blocked. She complained internally that inclusion of the word "lesbian" in the list was offensive and it discriminated against lesbians. This complaint lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission was resolved through conciliation. The employer removed the word "lesbian" from the list of blocked words and provided the employee with a letter of apology.

Discrimination may occur in the recruitment and selection process but it may also occur in the offer of terms and conditions of work, or in selecting employees for training, promotion, transfer, or dismissal due to redundancy.

In Farmer v Dorena Pty Ltd ([2002] NSWADT 81 (17 May 2002), the manager of a recruitment company accepted the curriculum vitae and references of a transgender applicant but refused to put forward the application for positions for which the transgender job applicant was clearly qualified to apply. When the job applicant asked about one position, the manager told the transgender that the prospective employer wanted women who had kids who would work part-time and for flexible hours. The court awarded the transgender woma compensation.

Discrimination may also occur at work when managers, supervisors or co-employees make comments, jokes or derogatory statements about other people's sexual orientation, gender identity, biological attributes, appearance or behaviour.

In Lulham v. Hanahan, Watkins Steel and others ([2003] QADT 11 (5 August 2003) an apprentice boilerplate maker was repeatedly asked by his co-workers about his sexual orientation. He was teased and taunted repeatedly about frequenting gay bars and having sex with minor children. His co-workers and employer were made to pay damages amounting to $26,000 for lost wages, hurt and humiliation and for litigation costs.