the Applicant v Murdoch Community Services Inc
Citation: [2010] FCA 648
At a glance
- Penalty
- $7,500
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
The Applicant was employed as a Coordinator of Laundry Services by Murdoch Community Services Inc from September 1988 until termination on 29 June 2009. The organisation provided employment and support programs for people with disabilities. The Applicant's employment was terminated following a period of temporary absence related to illness. She had a thyroid condition, which was known to the respondents. She also cared for her disabled sister. The Applicant was investigated for alleged breaches of workplace policies and was dismissed for misconduct.
What was decided
The Federal Court found the Respondent contravened ss 659(2)(a) and 659(2)(e) of the Workplace Relations Act by unlawfully terminating her employment in contravention of general protections provisions. The court found the true reason for dismissal was the Applicant's disability and her association with her disabled sister, not the alleged misconduct. A penalty of $7,500 was ordered. The Applicant was awarded six months remuneration as compensation. The court rejected the Respondent's defences relying on the alleged misconduct, finding the termination was discriminatory.
What it means for employers
Employers cannot dismiss employees because of their disability or association with a person with a disability. If an employee raises a disability-related issue, employers must treat the employee reasonably and accommodate where possible. Disciplinary investigations and dismissals must not be driven by considerations relating to disability. Investigating alleged misconduct does not provide a defence if disability was a substantial or operative reason for dismissal.
What it means for employees
Employees who are dismissed following disclosure of a disability should consider whether the disability was a factor in the dismissal decision. An employer's stated reason for dismissal may not be the true reason. Employees can bring claims for disability discrimination and general protections breaches. Compensation may include reinstatement or payment of lost remuneration plus a penalty.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2010/2010fca0648Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →