$12M Win Shows Why General Protections Claims Can Be Huge

In March 2026, the much publicised Fair Work general protections battle between Kyle Sandilands and ARN Media came to a resolution. As part of an out of court settlement, the company agreed to pay the dismissed KIIS FM star over $12 million for its general protections and contractual violations. ARN Media will also pay Sandilands $1.5 million to support his fledgling media company.

While Sandilands’ sacking involved unusual circumstances, it shows that a Fair Work general protections claim can result in significant compensation. Unlike unfair dismissal claims, where payouts are capped, general protections claims (also called adverse action claims) carry no statutory compensation ceiling. This is why they can result in huge payouts like the Sandilands settlement, or the $300,000-plus court award discussed at the end of this article.

In this article, we answer some of the most frequently asked questions about adverse action claims, including:

• What is an example of a general protections claim?
• What are some examples of adverse action?
• What is the general protections claim maximum compensation?
• What is the general protections claim success rate?
• What’s an example of a successful adverse action claim?

What is an example of a general protections claim?

An example of a Fair Work general protections claim is any situation where an employer takes adverse action against an employee. This could be because they:

• Exercised a workplace right, such as making a complaint about their working conditions or bullying.
  
• Have a workplace right that they have not exercised, have proposed to exercise in the future, or because they did not exercise a right.
  
• Held a protected attribute like race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.
  
• Is or is not a union or industrial association member.
  
• Took part or declined to take part in lawful industrial action, like a strike over pay.
  
• Was absent from work on permitted leave or for medical reasons.
  
• Lodged a complaint or inquiry with a regulatory body such as the Fair Work Commission.

Below are examples of recent Fair Work general protections claims with large payouts:

• Racial discrimination: In Han v St Basil’s Homes [2025], the Federal Court found that a nurse faced unlawful termination partly because of her race. The employer failed to disprove that the termination of employment was connected to her Chinese background. The nursing home was ordered to pay the nurse more than $321,000 in compensation, on top of $60,000 in penalties.
  
• Workplace complaint: In Barlow v St Vincent de Paul Society Queensland [2026], the Federal Court found that an operations manager’s unlawful termination had taken place due to her bullying complaints. The court found a HR manager had deceived the CEO into signing the termination letter by concealing the worker’s complaints. The charity was ordered to pay over $599,000 in economic loss, $50,000 in general damages and a $25,000 civil penalty.
  
• Sexual discrimination: In Duarte v United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs [2026], the Federal Court ordered the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs to pay more than $200,000 to a waitress at its Melbourne consulate. The court found the Ministry had subjected her to a deliberate pattern of discriminatory treatment, which included requiring her to express breastmilk in a storeroom and store it in a container of ice. It had also refused her parental leave and flexible working arrangements, and ultimately dismissed her.
  
• Sham redundancy: In Shum v Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre Inc [2026], the Federal Court found that a corporate restructure used to make an employee redundant was a pretext for unlawful termination. The court found the employee had been targeted for removal because she had exercised her workplace rights. The employee was awarded an adverse action payout of over $35,000.

What are some examples of adverse action?

Adverse action covers a wide range of conduct that can include:

• Dismissing a worker
  
• Injuring a worker in their employment. For example, overlooking them for a promotion or a training opportunity they were otherwise entitled to.
  
• Altering a worker’s position to their disadvantage. This could be via demotion, cutting their hours, giving them worse shifts or taking away their responsibilities.
  
• Suspending an employee, particularly without pay or for an unreasonably long period
  
• Discriminating against an employee based on a protected attribute. These can include race, sex, age, disability, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, family or carer responsibilities, and more.
  
• Threatening to do any of the above.

What is the maximum compensation for a general protections claim?

The maximum compensation for Fair Work general protections claims is limitless. Unlike unfair dismissal claims, adverse action claims do not have a statutory compensation cap. This is why payouts can run into the hundreds of thousands. Or in the Sandilands’ case, the millions. A court can award whatever sum is necessary to compensate the person for the adverse action. This typically includes:

• Past economic loss – lost wages and entitlements from the date of the adverse action and the date of judgment.
  
• Future economic loss – compensation for income the person is likely to lose going forward.
  
• General damages – compensation for non-economic loss such as distress, humiliation and injury caused by the adverse action.
  
• Other loss – such as future medical expenses connected to the impact of the adverse action or out-of-pocket expenses.

On top of compensation, courts can impose civil penalties against the employer, and sometimes against individuals within it. Penalties are paid separately from compensation and in some cases ordered to be paid directly to the employee. These penalties currently run up to roughly $18,780 per contravention for an individual and around $93,900 per contravention for an employer. Multiple contraventions can each attract a separate penalty.

What is the success rate of general protections claims?

Most Fair Work general protection claims never reach a courtroom but are instead settled beforehand. According to the Fair Work Commission, 6,089 general protections claims were finalised in the 2024-25 financial year. Around half were resolved at the conciliation stage. This means that the employee and employer come to an agreed resolution that most typically involves a financial settlement. 

Here’s a breakdown of Fair Work general protections outcomes in 2024-25:

• Around half (52%) of claims were settled at a conciliation conference. This included 18% through a conference run by a staff conciliator and 34% through a conference conducted by a Commission member.
  
• Only a third (33%) of claims ended with the Commission issuing a certificate to proceed to court.
  
• A further 9% were resolved even earlier, through triage and early case management processes.
  
• 5% were dismissed outright after a jurisdictional objection by the employer was upheld.

In other words, if you lodge a Fair Work adverse action claim, the most likely outcome is a negotiated settlement at conciliation, not a court battle. An early settlement can mean faster resolution but typically a more modest payout than a court judgement would produce.  If your claim is left unresolved at the conciliation stage, you can apply for a certificate to pursue the claim in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia or the Federal Court.

What’s an example of a successful adverse action claim?

An example of a successful Fair Work general protections claim with a sizeable payout is Han v St Basil’s Homes (No 2) [2025]. In this case, the Federal Court found a Sydney nursing home had unlawfully dismissed a Chinese nurse partly because of her race and because she had raised workplace complaints. The nursing home was ordered to pay the nurse more than $321,000 in compensation, on top of $60,000 in penalties.

Case summary: Han v St Basil’s Homes [2025]

• Jurisdiction: Federal Court of Australia.
  
• Key employee argument: Her unlawful termination was an adverse action connected to her complaints about staff conduct and her race.
  
• Key employer argument: The termination was based on a genuine belief that she had directed an unqualified colleague to administer oxygen to a resident.
  
• Court ruling: Found her unlawful termination was connected to both her workplace complaints and her race. Awarded $321,559.62 in compensation plus $60,000 in penalties.

Nurse wins huge Fair Work adverse action payout 

Wei Han, also known as Casey, worked as a registered nurse for St. Basil’s Homes at its aged care facility in Sydney. She had worked there for over nine years before her unlawful termination on 23 January 2020. From around June 2019, Ms. Han’s workload increased substantially. At the same time, she began to notice that a clique of mostly Filipino colleagues was favoured over her in shift allocations. This left her feeling excluded and unsupported.

In August 2019, Ms. Han was accused of calling a colleague “a bitch” during a handover conversation. She argued that this was an attempt at humour rather than an insult. Following an investigation, she was issued a first and final warning on 10 September 2019.

Fair Work general protections: Alleged she had been ‘targeted’

Ms. Han subsequently raised a series of formal complaints with St. Basil’s Homes’ management. This included a six-page note in September 2019 and a further written complaint on 1 December 2019. Ms. Han alleged that she had been “repeatedly targeted” by a colleague and no longer felt safe at work. She also reported clinical concerns, including a resident’s bruising and a missed second signatory for a controlled drug.

On 15 December 2019, Ms. Han instructed a team leader to administer oxygen to a deteriorating resident after the team leader said she needed to go home. Following a meeting on 23 January 2020, Ms. Han faced termination of employment. A complaint was lodged against her with the national health practitioner regulator that same day. The complaint alleged that she had breached patient privacy, acted outside her clinical scope and engaged in workplace bullying. The regulator later closed the matter with no further action, finding the allegations “imprecise.”

Why did the nurse argue she faced adverse action and unlawful termination? 

In her Fair Work general protections claim, Ms. Han argued the dismissal amounted to adverse action. She claimed St. Basil’s Homes had violated sections 340(1)(a) and 351(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the following reasons:

• St. Basil’s Homes terminated her employment because she had exercised her workplace right to make complaints about her employment.
  
• Her unlawful termination was connected to her Chinese race. She alleged the general manager favoured Filipino colleagues over her in shift allocations, workload distribution and disciplinary outcomes.
  
• St. Basil’s Homes used her workplace complaints as the basis for unfounded misconduct allegations against her.
  
• There was no written policy at St. Basil’s Homes prohibiting a team leader from administering oxygen to a resident.
  
• She was denied procedural fairness throughout the disciplinary process. This included not being told the nature of the allegations against her before multiple meetings.
  
• The complaint lodged against her with the health regulator was rejected. It found the allegations “imprecise” and not raising “significant concerns.” 

In response to the Fair Work general protections claim, St. Basil’s Homes argued that it genuinely believed Ms. Han had breached her duties by directing an unqualified colleague to administer oxygen. This was despite conceding it had no written policy on the issue. The organisation also admitted that it had failed to give Ms. Han adequate notice of the allegations against her.

Why did the court find adverse action and unlawful termination?

Ms. Han’s Fair Work general protections claim was first heard by the Federal Court of Australia in 2023. The court delivered its compensation ruling in 2025. It found that her termination of employment had been substantially motivated by Ms. Han’s complaints about her employment and by her Chinese ethnicity. It therefore ruled that her employer had taken adverse action.

The court’s findings included:

• The warning issued on 10 September 2019 was not adverse action. This was because management genuinely believed Ms. Han had breached the code of conduct by calling a colleague “a bitch.”
  
• St. Basil’s Homes failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the termination was taken for proscribed reasons.
  
• The clinical misconduct allegations used to justify the unlawful termination were based on “flimsy foundations.”
   
• St. Basil’s Homes did not have a written policy prohibiting a team leader from administering oxygen to a resident.
  
• The organisation had “turned the tables” on Ms. Han by using her legitimate complaints as the basis for a “trumped up attack” rather than investigating them properly.
  
• Ms. Han’s manager favoured her Filipino colleagues by dismissing concerns Ms. Han raised about their conduct.
  
• Ms. Han was afforded no procedural fairness in the lead-up to her unlawful termination. She was not told the nature of the allegations before disciplinary meetings and was not given an opportunity to respond.

Awarded $381K Fair Work general protections payout

In the 2025 damages judgment, the Federal Court criticised both parties’ claims as “ambitious.” It noted Ms. Han’s case for over $2 million had “paid little attention to the statutory norm at stake.” In the end, the court ordered St. Basil’s Homes to pay Ms. Han a total of $321,559.62 in compensation. This comprised of:

•  $175,000 for past economic loss.
• $61,559.62 for future economic loss.
• $75,000 in general damages.
• $10,000 for future medical expenses.

The court also imposed $60,000 in civil penalties. This included $45,000 for the contravention involving race discrimination and $15,000 for retaliation against her workplace complaints. Both these sums were payable directly to Ms. Han.

Read more: $5.2M General Protections Win Undone, Now Faces Millions in Legal Costs

Have you faced adverse action or unlawful termination?

If you believe you have been dismissed for exercising a workplace right, or subjected to adverse action, hostile treatment or workplace bullying by your employer, it is important to act quickly. We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives assist employees across Australia with general protections, unlawful termination, unfair dismissal and forced resignation claims.

Strict time limits apply, with most Fair Work claims needing to be lodged within 21 days of dismissal. Contact us today on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential discussion about your situation.