the Applicant v The Trustee For Maths Not Squiggles Trust
Citation: [2026] FWC 3019
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed as a mathematics tutor by Maths Not Squiggles Pty Ltd (MWNS). On November 4, 2025, he had an exchange with a 14-year-old female student who briefly entered his tutoring room. The student's mother complained about comments the Applicant made to her daughter, alleging he asked if she wanted to be seen as a 'sex object'. MWNS suspended him pending investigation and later dismissed him on November 10, 2025, for misconduct. the Applicant subsequently filed an unfair dismissal application.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission determined that the Applicant’s dismissal was not unfair. The Commissioner found his account of the events to be credible and accepted he did not use the specific words alleged by the student's mother. While acknowledging the comment about being seen as a 'sex object' was inappropriate, the Commissioner considered it a valid reason for dismissal. There was no lack of procedural fairness and no other considerations rendering the dismissal unfair. The application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure clear policies regarding appropriate conduct towards students or clients, particularly concerning sensitive topics like sexualisation. Thorough investigations are crucial, but dismissing an employee based on inappropriate comments, even if not entirely accurate according to their account, can be a justifiable reason for termination.
What it means for employees
Employees have a responsibility to maintain professional boundaries and avoid making inappropriate remarks, especially towards vulnerable individuals. Even if the exact words used are disputed, demonstrating awareness of the impact of one's comments is important. Employees should also be aware that their credibility can be affected by disputing evidence such as CCTV footage.
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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc3019.pdfWant 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 →