Resources: Blog

Court rejects employee’s proposed adjustments to workplace


Put it in writing

Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation imposes positive obligations on employers to make reasonable adjustments in the workplace to accommodate an employee’s disability, unless doing so would cause unjustifiable hardship to the business.

Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation imposes positive obligations on employers to make reasonable adjustments in the workplace to accommodate an employee’s disability, unless doing so would cause unjustifiable hardship to the business.

A failure to make such reasonable adjustments may constitute disability discrimination.

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the Court) considered the reasonableness of proposed workplace adjustments for an employee who had Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (Kristjansson v State of Queensland [2018] FCCA 3894).

The employee, a payroll client services officer with Queensland’s Department of Health, had been off work because he believed he was being bullied and harassed in the workplace. His employer made several attempts to engage him in a return-to-work process and find a placement for him within the Department.

After two failed attempts at a placement, the employee claimed he was unlawfully discriminated against because his employer had refused to make the following four reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disability:

  • provide a support person on the first day who was able to be contacted with any concerns and to attend meetings with him;
  • allow the employee to record any discussion on a voice recorder;
  • that all directions to the employee be made in writing; and
  • provide the employee with 24 hours’ notice in writing of all meetings.

Ultimately, the Court held that the employer had not unlawfully discriminated against the employee as alleged.

The Court went on to state that, even if the failure to provide those adjustments resulted in less favourable treatment to the employee, implementation of the adjustments would have caused the employer unjustifiable hardship. In particular:

  • having to train an additional person to support the employee placed a ‘very high burden’ on the employer;
  • allowing the employee to record any discussion would make it difficult to build and maintain trust and cohesiveness in the workplace and would likely have the effect of further ostracising the employee;
  • requiring all directions to be made in writing was impractical and potentially unsafe – particularly in cases of emergency where directions needed to be followed urgently; and
  • requiring 24 hours’ notice of meetings was impractical and contrary to how a workplace is run.

The Court dismissed the employee’s claim on all counts.

Lessons for employers

Employers should be mindful of the obligation to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabilities and assist an employee to perform their employment duties. In such situations, careful assessment should be made about what can reasonably be done to assist an employee in the circumstances of the particular business. However, there is a limit to the obligation and employers will not be required to make reasonable adjustments that impose unjustifiable hardship on their business.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Changes to the Fair Work Act and Sex Discrimination Act to commence shortly


On 2 September 2021, the Federal Parliament passed the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 (the Bill).


Employee dismissed for exercising workplace right to take leave

Diamonds are not a girl’s best friend

The general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) provide protections against adverse action which is taken for a prohibited reason. Prohibited reasons for taking adverse action include situations where a person has a workplace right and exercises (or proposes to exercise) that right. Workplace rights include the right to utilise leave entitlements under the FW Act.


Court finds multiple breaches of general protections provisions

Direction needed

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the Court) recently ruled on an application brought by an employee alleging that three respondents had engaged in breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), including sham contracting and dismissing the employee because she was pregnant.


Commission finds mask mandate to be a lawful and reasonable direction

Mask up

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.


Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.


Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.