b'CASE LAWDISMISSALJessica Hastings v Platform To Pty Ltd. [2024] FWC 2475What happened:Practical Implementation/Learnings: Platform To, a disability support provider, dismissed a 1.Dismissal must be based on conduct, notcasual worker over "behavioural concerns." The worker diagnosisEmployers can lawfullyhad returned a clients medication to a pharmacy after the terminate an employee with a disability ifclient revealed ongoing antidepressant use, despite telling the dismissal is due to conduct thather Doctor and other support workers she had stopped. breaches professional boundaries or posesThe worker also transferred another clients dog into her risk, provided it is not based on thename and cared for it after the client planned to put the disability itself.dog down.2.Clearly define role boundaries Especially in support roles, employersA few weeks before her dismissal, the worker also told must ensure employees understand thethem she had some tests done and "if it hasn\'t been limits of their responsibilities. Providingblatantly obvious already, I received an ASD Level 2 clear policies, handbooks, and trainingdiagnosis". She asked the directors to "give me a helps prevent overreach and confusion inhandbook" and "a link of what processes to follow" so she sensitive situations.could "stop pestering" them. 3.Responding to risky conduct is justified Intervention by a worker that involvesThe employer terminated her employment after a further unilateral decisionssuch as takingclient complaint, upgrading their original intention to only control of medication or removing a pet performance manage her. can justifiably result in dismissal if itexposes the business or other parties toThe worker claimed her dismissal was due to her mental risk.disability (ASD Level 2 diagnosis) and that she was 4.Performance management beforepenalised for exercising workplace rights. termination helpsEvidence ofperformance management orThe employer cited a recurring pattern of breaching consideration of the appropriate level ofprofessional boundaries and making decisions which put management action can assist in showingthe business and its clients at significant risk as reasons for that a dismissal was not abrupt ordismissal. discriminatory.Outcome: Deputy President Cross held that the dismissal was not The Legislation: because of the workers mental disability or her Section 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth),exercise of workplace rights, but due to her conduct, prohibits an employer from dismissing anwhich went beyond her job duties and breached employee because of a protected attribute,professional guidelines. Her actionstaking the clients including disability. This protects employees frommedication, intervening with the dog, and other discrimination based on mental or physicalbehaviorswere deemed to pose significant risks to disabilities.the employer and clients.Section 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth),The DP noted that "the suggestion that two individuals protects employees from adverse action (such aswho established a company which provides for people dismissal) for exercising a workplace right,with special needs, made the decision to terminate the including making complaints or inquiries related[worker] because she was neurodivergent lacks any to their employment.basis, and was understandably considered offensive,".Page | 26IR Update July 2025'