A dismissed customer service employee has won $25,000 after the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission found she was unlawfully discriminated against for being a carer. The worker was caring for her chronically ill husband when her employer insisted on medical proof from her husband’s doctor that her return to work wouldn’t put him at risk.
The requirement, imposed during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, was deemed an “overreach” and a breach of anti-discrimination law. She was kept from returning to work for six months, before being dismissed.
In this article, we look at the events of this discrimination case – Rutherford v RACQ Operations Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2025]. And later, we’ll explore the case of a Woolworths employee with carer responsibilities who was dismissed for taking 92 days off work in the space of a year.
Julie Rutherford had worked for Queensland roadside assistance and insurance company RACQ Operations for 36 years as a customer service officer. Her issues with the company commenced following a workplace injury which aggravated a pre-existing degenerative thoracic spine condition. Medical advice indicated that if she suffered reinjury, she could end up paralysed.
In the early stages of the COVID pandemic, Ms. Rutherford decided to take leave to care for her husband to “protect” him from getting ill from COVID. Her husband suffered from chronic illnesses, including multiple sclerosis and Churg-Strauss syndrome. By June 2020, Ms. Rutherford’s doctors cleared her for a gradual return to work with restricted duties and reduced hours. This was in part because she believed her customer-facing role would “benefit her mental health.”
Following disclosure of her husband’s vulnerability, Ms. Rutherford’s manager insisted that she secure further medical “clearance.” This was because her husband’s specialist had previously had a “serious concern” about her returning to work unless she could self-isolate from her husband.
Ms. Rutherford acquired a certificate from her husband’s doctor, who said they had “no objections” to her returning to work. However, the doctor also noted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are risks involved with face to face client contact.
RACQ Operations rejected this clearance, asserting it was of “equivocal” nature. It offered Ms. Rutherford the ability to work from home, but she rejected this situation as she thought it would be detrimental to her mental health. The company then imposed an additional requirement upon Ms. Rutherford to provide health information regarding her husband as a pre-condition for her return.
Ms. Rutherford informed RACQ Operations that her husband’s thoracic specialist had stated that there was no way she could confirm if her husband wasn’t at risk of catching COVID if she returned to work. Ms. Rutherford ultimately returned to work in May 2021, working six hours a week on restricted duties. However, three months later, in August 2021, her doctor certified her medically unfit for work indefinitely, deeming her restricted duties and hours “unsuitable and unsafe.” Her employment was formally terminated on medical grounds on 1 April 2022.
Ms. Rutherford subsequently lodged an discrimination claim with the Queensland Industrial Relations Tribunal. She alleged QIRC Operations discriminated against her on the basis of impairment and family responsibilities. She sought for her termination to be reclassified as “retired / honorary staff.” Ms. Rutherford also sought $30,000 in general damages and a further $30,000 for aggravated damages. Furthermore, she sought $624,078 for loss of future earnings until her projected retirement age of 67.
Meanwhile, QIRC Operations strongly defended its actions, primarily focusing on its statutory obligations under workplace health and safety laws. The company argued that the requirement for the specialist clearance was “reasonably required” to ensure the health and safety of Ms. Rutherford’s husband. RACQ Operations also defended its termination of Ms. Rutherford’s employment. It submitted medical evidence that she couldn’t safely meet the genuine occupational requirements of her role without unacceptable risk to her own health.
The Queensland Industrial Relations Tribunal heard Ms. Rutherford’s discrimination claim in August 2025. It found that the June 2020 medical clearance demand was substantiated as a claim of direct discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities as a carer. It also violated Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 for requesting unnecessary information in the act of discriminating against Ms. Rutherford.
The Tribunal described QIRC Operations’ request for clearance from Ms. Rutherford’s husband’s doctor as “overreach.” It said that Queensland’s Work Health and Safety Act 2011 didn’t require this action. The Tribunal noted that “a duty of care is not owed to the whole world.” This discriminatory conduct prevented Ms. Rutherford from returning to her substantive role for a period of time
While the Queensland Industrial Relations Tribunal agreed Ms. Rutherford had been directly discriminated against, it disagreed that her dismissal was discriminatory. It accepted that the medical evidence confirmed Ms. Rutherford could not safely undertake the inherent requirements of her role due to her own impairment.
Claims of discrimination due to the denial of specific items like an anti-fatigue mat and sit-stand desk were also dismissed. The Tribunal also rejected Ms. Rutherford’s claim to be compensated $624,078 in future economic loss. It noted that she had already received $210,00 in a common law claim settlement. This covered past economic loss and future economic loss for the same period.
The Tribunal however ordered RACQ Operations to pay her $25,000 in general damages. This figure was compensation for the hurt and financial distress Ms. Rutherford suffered due to the unlawful six-month enforced absence. This was a single figure encompassing both the general injury and the factors of aggravation.
Another recent case involving dismissal of an employee with chronic illness and carer responsibilities is Anthony Clark v Woolworths Group Limited [2025]. Anthony Clark had worked for over 20 years at a Woolworths warehouse. In August 2022, he began a period of frequent absences from work. This was due to his own declining health and the severe struggles of his son.
Mr. Clark was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease and suffered from pneumonia. He was also dependent on a prescribed drug which he claimed caused “bad side-effects.” Separated from his wife, Mr. Clark was the primary carer for his 22-year-old son, who was struggling with anxiety, depression and an addiction to methamphetamine.
Woolworths gave Mr. Clark a series of written directions directing him to demonstrate “immediate” improvement in attendance. However, his attendance issues and non-compliance persisted. In February 2025, Mr. Clark was issued a formal warning letter stating that if he continued being absent, he would be dismissed.
Despite this, Mr. Clark was again absent on a number of further occasions between February 2025 and April 2025 without providing evidence or sufficient notice. In February 2025, Woolworths requested a report from his doctor regarding his fitness for work. His doctor confirmed that he was fit, however immediately after this Mr. Clark took further time off, citing a respiratory virus.
Upon Mr. Clark’s return to work after an absence in April 2025, his manager issued him a letter requiring him to “show cause” why he shouldn’t be dismissed. The letter noted that Mr. Clark had taken 92 absences in the last 12 months and was not meeting the inherent requirements of his role. The letter made no mention of his failure to follow the earlier directions.
Mr. Clark responded to the letter in writing, offering “sincere apologies” and asking for one more opportunity to “prove himself.” He said that he had an improved health outlook with new medication. Nevertheless, Woolworths dismissed him on 16 April 2025, providing five weeks’ salary in lieu of notice.
Mr. Clark subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. He argued that his dismissal lacked a valid reason. He contended that the reason cited by Woolworths – not meeting the inherent requirements of his job – was unsubstantiated. He made this argument on the basis that his doctor said he was “fit for duty.”
Mr. Clark asserted that his medication had changed and his health had improved. He also claimed that he was able to meet the role’s requirements at the time of termination. Mr. Clark argued that even if a valid reason existed, the dismissal was harsh and disproportionate. He highlighted his over 20 years of “dedicated service” and the significant medical and personal problems he had suffered. He pleaded for reinstatement, citing evidence of a change in his medical situation which had resolved the underlying concerns.
In response to the unfair dismissal claim, Woolworths argued to the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Clark’s sacking was fair due to his persistent absenteeism. Also, because of his repeated failure to follow lawful and reasonable directions. The company argued that the storeman was not meeting the inherent requirements of his job due to the sheer volume of his absences.
Woolworths also said that he was not meeting requirements due to his lack of compliance with the company’s rules regarding notification and evidence. Mr. Clark’s manager gave evidence that his absences were causing problems because Woolworths kept having to find other staff to cover his shifts at the last minute.
Mr. Clark’s unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in July 2025. It found that Woolworths had two valid reasons to sack Mr. Clark. The first was that he wasn’t meeting the inherent requirements of his employment. The Commission said that this was not about his medical capacity, but rather his failure to actually “attend for work.”
It found his reasons for often being unable to obtain evidence for absences “unconvincing.” The Commission queried why he could not have sought a certificate from a different doctor or pharmacy, or utilised a telehealth clinic.
The second valid reason for Mr. Clark’s termination was his repeated failure to follow lawful and reasonable directions. The Commission acknowledged Mr. Clark’s long period of service to Woolworths and the “genuine personal hardship” both through his own illness and the poor mental health of his son. However, these factors did not outweigh the gravity of his continued conduct issues.
Ultimately, the Commission concluded that Woolworths’ decision to dismiss was not disproportionate. The finding noted that Mr. Clark had already been given “a second chance, and further chances” over several years. However, his continued non-compliance after the explicit warning in February 2025 was “repeated and of substance.”
Read more: Family Duties, Parental Status or Status as a Carer Discrimination
With more than three decades of experience and thousands of successful workplace claims, Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives (AWDR) is Australia’s leading employee representation service. We help workers across the country get justice for unfair dismissal, workplace harassment, discrimination and more.
We know how stressful it can be to challenge an employer through the Fair Work Commission, which is why we handle your claim from start to finish. Strict deadlines for lodging claims apply, so act fast. Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for confidential advice 7 days a week.
