From the outset, it is important to note that the Full Bench overturned Justice Kerr’s decision in Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1407¹ and sent the case back for rehearing. The Appeal challenged the Primary Judge’s findings, with TechnologyOne Limited seeking a reconsideration of the judgment, either resulting in a different legal outcome or reduced awarded damages.
This case serves as a cautionary tale for employers about the legal risks associated with unfair dismissals, disability discrimination, and contract interpretation. Employers must take steps to ensure fair treatment, clear communication, and proper documentation of all employment decisions to avoid costly legal battles and reputational damage.
Case Background:
TechnologyOne Limited employed Mr. Benham Roohizadegan, as a software engineer. Doctors diagnosed him with mental health conditions. Although these conditions affected his ability to perform certain aspects of his job, they did not significantly impair his overall ability. Roohizadegan did however struggle with meeting certain performance targets, particularly related to technical requirements as a result. He also took periods of medical leave and faced challenges managing his health while balancing work demands.
TechnologyOne terminated his employment in 2016, citing performance issues, particularly his failure meeting Key Performance Indicators. Roohizadegan argued that these performance issues were closely tied to his disability. He claimed that the company had failed to accommodate his condition, leading to discriminatory treatment and wrongful dismissal.
Allegations made by Mr Roohizadegan
Roohizadegan alleged unfair dismissal as TechnologyOne Limited did not follow proper procedures and failed to consider his disabilities impact on his performance. He argued that the organisation had discriminated against his disability, neglecting to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disability, thereby violating the Disability Discrimination Act 1992².
Judgment of Justice Kerr
Justice Kerr ruled in favour of Mr Roohizadegan, finding that TechnologyOne Limited had breached Procedural Fairness under the Fair Work Act 2009³, not communicating their performance concerns or giving Roohizadegan an opportunity to respond. They also failed to investigate if these performance issues were related to his disability and exploring reasonable accommodations. The organisation discriminated against Roohizadegan under the Disability Discrimination Act, having failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability-related performance issues.
Remedies and Compensation
The court awarded Mr. Roohizadegan $2.825 million in compensation for his lost wages from the time of his dismissal until the judgment, and an additional $10,000 for the emotional distress caused by the unfair dismissal and discriminatory treatment.
The Court did not order a reinstatement of Roohizadegan’s employment, due to the breakdown of his employment relationship and the length of time that had passed since his dismissal. They also rejected his claim for $50,000 in medical expenses, noting that there was insufficient evidence to support it.
The Appeal – Technology One Limited v Roohizadegan [2021] FCAFC 137⁴
TechnologyOne Limited appealed the Primary Judge’s judgment in 2021 on two grounds. First, it challenged the Adverse Action claim under the Fair Work Act 2009⁵. Second, it disputed the contract claim concerning Mr. Roohizadegan’s entitlement to incentive payments under his TechnologyOne Limited employment contract.
Court Findings on Appeal
The Full Bench found errors in the Primary Judge’s assessment of the facts in Roohizadegan’s Adverse Action claim; neglecting to consider or assess his seven complaints and their substantialness to his dismissal. They found that the Primary Judge neglected considering the context of these complaints, critical when determining if prohibited reasons lead to a dismissal. As a result, the Court ordered a new trial for the Adverse Action claim.
Additionally, there was also a review of Roohizadegan’s Contract claim with the Full Bench ruling that the Primary Judge had misinterpreted the term “Business Unit 03 – Victoria – Service Delivery” in his contract, finding that it referred to a specific unit, not a geographical region. The Court also noted that the parties had not properly considered the royalty rules for SMS sales. They ordered a retrial of the Contract Claim to properly assess Roohizadegan’s entitlement to incentive payments.
Roohizadegan raised further arguments regarding the involvement of Messrs, Harwood, MacDonald, and Chung in the decision to dismiss him. The Court rejected these claims, finding that the Primary Judge had already accepted that Mr Di Marco was the sole decision-maker. It found no evidence suggesting that the other individuals played any material role in the termination process.
In his cross-appeal, Roohizadegan sought adjustments to the compensation award, including additional damages for future economic loss and higher compensation for emotional distress. The Court dismissed this cross-appeal, noting that it had ordered a retrial of both the Adverse Action and Contract Claims, therefore setting aside all previous orders on damages.
Take home message for employers
This case serves as a reminder of the legal obligations to manage employees fairly, particularly those with disabilities, and to interpret contracts clearly and consistently. Employers should:
- Proactively address employee complaints and ensure that reasonable accommodations are made, especially when an employee’s health condition impacts performance.
- Ensure that performance issues are properly communicated and addressed before taking actions such as termination.
- Follow procedural fairness and properly document decisions to ensure they can withstand legal scrutiny.
Failure to do so can lead to significant legal risks, including costly damages, reputational damage, and the possibility of retrials or appeals. This case highlights the importance of fair, well-documented, and legally sound practices in employment management.
How can Madison Marcus help you?
For employers, Madison Marcus can assist you by providing crucial and timely advice on the management of employee engagement. We can help you conduct the onboarding process appropriately and put the correct agreements in place to protect your business from future claims. During employment, we assist in managing the employment relationship and protecting your business before disputes escalate. If disciplinary action becomes necessary, we ensure that you manage and minimise any ongoing exposure.
As an employee, if you believe your employer unfairly terminated your employment due to disability, our expert team at Madison Marcus is here to provide expert advice and support. Contact us today for a confidential consultation.
¹ Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1729, Federal Court of Australia, available at:
² Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04426/2018-04-12/text
³ Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00323
