McLoughlin v Randstad Pty Ltd (No 3)

In *McLoughlin v Randstad Pty Ltd (No 3)*, the applicant, Ms McLoughlin, brought proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Randstad Pty Ltd and other respondents. Ms McLoughlin alleged that her termination of employment constituted adverse action contrary to sections 340 and 351 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). She further alleged that the third and fourth respondents were knowingly involved in these contraventions, pursuant to section 550 of the Act.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the termination of Ms McLoughlin's employment was adverse action within the meaning of section 342(1) of the Act, and if so, whether her mental illness or disability was a substantial and operative reason for that adverse action. The Court was also required to determine whether the presumption of a proscribed reason under section 361 of the Act had been rebutted by the respondents, and consequently, whether any contraventions of sections 340, 351, or 550 of the Act had been established.

Judge Street found that Ms McLoughlin's mental illness or disability was not a substantial and operative reason for the adverse action taken in dismissing her. Accordingly, the adverse action presumption under section 361 of the Act was rebutted. As a result, the Court concluded that no contravention of sections 340 or 351 of the Act had been made out, and consequently, no contravention under section 550 of the Act was established against the third or fourth respondents. The application was therefore dismissed.