Mohammed v City of Whittlesea Council (No.2)

This case involved an application by an employee against the City of Whittlesea Council concerning the termination of his employment. The applicant alleged that the decision to terminate his employment constituted unlawful adverse action under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), specifically contravening sections 340(1) and 351(1). The respondent council contended that the termination was solely due to the applicant's inability to perform the inherent requirements of his position as a Local Laws Enforcement Officer, and that any exceptions under section 351(2) applied. The matter was heard by Judge O'Sullivan.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the decision to terminate the applicant's employment was taken for an unlawful reason, as alleged by the applicant, and whether the respondent could rely on exceptions to the general prohibitions against adverse action. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the termination was motivated by the applicant's physical disability or illness, and if so, whether the respondent's actions were justified by the applicant's inability to perform the inherent requirements of his role, with no reasonable adjustments possible. The Court also considered whether other matters raised by the applicant, such as special leave and job classification, constituted separate instances of adverse action or were relevant to the reasons for termination.

The Court found that the sole reason for the termination decision, made by the Human Resources Manager, Ms Reardon, was the applicant's incapacity to perform the inherent requirements of his position. This assessment was based on medical evidence from the applicant's treating doctor, who stated the applicant was unfit for any duties and could not provide a timeframe for recovery, and that no adjustments could be made at that stage. The Court accepted Ms Reardon's evidence that extraneous matters alleged by the applicant were not reasons for the decision. Furthermore, the Court held that the exceptions under section 351(2)(a) and (b) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* applied, as the termination was necessitated by the applicant's inability to carry out the inherent requirements of his role, and his treating doctor confirmed no feasible adjustments could be made. The Court concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of sections 340 or 351 of the Act.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicant's claim should fail. The only adverse action under consideration was the termination of employment, and the Court found no contravention of the relevant provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009*.