Medical-Grounds Termination Not Unlawful Discrimination

The Federal Circuit and Family Court has ruled (Mullaney v Qube Ports Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 1784 (30 October 2025)) that an employer did not breach anti-discrimination laws when it dismissed an employee who could no longer perform the inherent requirements of his role due to degenerative medical conditions.

The employee, injured in 2017, returned under modified duties but later sought to avoid lashing tasks permanently. An independent medical assessment confirmed degenerative changes to his back, shoulders, and knees, recommending he avoid heavy lifting and squatting. The employer concluded the employee could not safely perform core duties and terminated his employment.

The employee alleged discrimination under section 15(2)(c) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The Court found the employer admitted the worker had a disability but held the dismissal was not discriminatory because an employer would have treated any worker unable to perform these tasks the same way. Crucially, the worker failed to identify any reasonable adjustments before termination or during proceedings.

The Court dismissed the claim and ordered costs against the employee.

Our Take

This case reinforces a key principle: employers can lawfully terminate employment where a worker cannot perform the inherent requirements of the role, even if the incapacity stems from a disability, provided reasonable adjustments are considered and where they would have treated a person without the disability in the same way where they were also unable to meet such inherent requirements. This is a classic application of the ‘comparator test’ as set out in the long line of decisions flowing from the High Court decision of Purvis.

The lesson? Genuinely understand, publicise and rely on only the inherent requirements of a role. Then if required document your process, seek medical advice, and consult on adjustments. For employees, failing to actively participate in proposed practical accommodations can undermine a discrimination claim. Here, the absence of any proposed adjustments left the employer with no viable alternative.

Clear, contemporaneous and tailored medical advice is ‘gold’ in case like these. We recommend only using medical practitioners who genuinely understand the practical requirements of a role and can communicate this in any report. Too often we see employers attempting to take ‘short cut’ by not investing the time in their medical assessor to understand their business.

Action Items

1. Clarify Inherent Requirements - Ensure job descriptions clearly identify core duties and physical requirements.

2. Obtain Independent Medical Evidence - Use qualified assessments to confirm capacity and risks before making decisions.

3. Consult on Adjustments - Engage with the worker and their representative to explore reasonable modifications. Document all discussions.

4. Issue Clear Communication - Provide a detailed show cause letter outlining incapacity concerns and invite input on adjustments.

5. Maintain Procedural Fairness - Follow a transparent process before termination, including opportunities for response.

Edge Legal

Relationships. Respect. Results