The Fair Work Commission has ruled that a pay cut given to two men so their employer could ensure gender pay equity amounted to dismissal. In their Fair Work general protections claim, the duo said they were given an over 10% pay cut after female employees protested to management about pay discrepancy. The Commission noted the employer’s goal of ensuring gender parity. However, it said that “One does not break the proverbial glass ceiling by amputating the legs of the men above.”
In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work general protections case Jordan Lovini & George Padinjarethalackal Jacob v Youturn Limited & Darce Foley [2025]. We also look at a case from the US where a worker took legal action because her employer promoted a lesbian over her in the name of DEI.
Jordan Lovini and Mr. George Padinjarethalackal Jacob were employed as case managers at Noosa, QLD-based not-for-profit Youturn Limited. The organisation specialised in child safety and mental health services. Mr. Lovini started at the organisation in November 2017, while Mr. Jacob began his employment in November 2018. Both men were classified and paid at Level 5 under the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Award.
The events that led to the men’s dismissal began in October 2021. This was when Youturn held a meeting where management, including its general manager Darce Foley, made an announcement about pay. They informed staff that while new hires for the Intensive Family Support Program would be brought in as Level 4 case officers due to funding constraints, existing staff would be grandfathered at Level 5. This arrangement meant that while the role title changed for new employees, the incumbent male case managers would maintain their higher status and pay.
As a result of this change, the three existing male case managers remained at Level 5, while subsequent hires, who were predominantly female, were employed at the lower Level 4. By late 2024, female staff members began to raise concerns regarding this pay gap during staff meetings and company conferences. In response, Youturn provided ex-gratia payments of between $10,000 and $12,000 to the female employees to bridge the difference. The organisation said that these payments were made in the name of “fairness and equality.”
However, on 10 June 2025, the organisation informed Mr. Lovini and Mr. Jacob that a year-long review had concluded their roles were “incorrectly classified” at Level 5. They were told their positions would be reclassified to Level 4 effective 1 July 2025. This would result in a salary drop from $101,787.51 to approximately $91,598.47. The employees were told this was “in the best interests” of Youturn.
Mr. Lovini and Mr. Jacob both rejected the change to their employment. Mr. Lovini refused to sign a contract variation that would see him become a Level 4 employee. However, Youturn later issued him a contract variation which did not require his signature. In his Fair Work general protections claim, Mr. Lovini said that he continued to work for Youturn “under protest,” insisting that he was still a Level 5 employee.
He stated that he was performing work under “significant stress and duress” while being paid less than what he believed was his correct classification. Mr. Jacob told the Fair Work Commission that he continued performing the same work as he did when he was classified as a Level 5 employee. He said that the change had a significant impact on his pay and “value,” testifying that his “self-worth” had been affected.
In their Fair Work general protections claim, the employees argued that their demotion and 10.1% pay cut constituted a dismissal. They said that their duties had not changed and still met the criteria for Level 5, involving complex case management and high-risk situations. Mr. Lovini noted that he performed complex case management and provided professional guidance to other workers. The men said that Youturn did not conduct a meaningful consultation with them about the changes.
In response to the Fair Work general protections claim, Youturn argued that no dismissal had occurred. The organisation said that Mr. Lovini and Mr. Jacob were still employed in their positions with no loss of duties, status or employment. Youturn contended that the reclassification was a “legal requirement” to ensure roles aligned with Award descriptors. It said that they could not keep the men at Level 5 classifications without undermining “fairness and consistency” across the workforce.
Youturn argued to the Fair Work Commission that rather than a dismissal, the men had simply experienced a “modest” reduction in pay. It argued that the reduction was a proportionate way to ensure “equity” across the team, denying any unlawful dismissal had taken place. They claimed that as an employer, they “must” align classifications with the Award descriptors to avoid future disputes.
Mr. Lovini and Mr. Jacob’s Fair Work general protections claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in December 2025. It noted that their pay reduction of approximately $10,000 per annum was “significant.” It rejected Youturn’s arguments that their reclassification from Level 5 to Level 4 was “modest.” The Commission said that the pay cut undid several years’ worth of annual salary increases.
The Commission considered the fact that not only did the men get less take-home pay but also superannuation and long service leave entitlements. The Commission also highlighted that even after a national wage increase was applied, the employees were still in a position only “marginally better” than they were in 2022.
The Commission was critical of Youturn’s justification for the pay cut and the lack of consultation. It noted that the organisation had the discretion to pay employees at a higher pay grade “if it wishes.” The Commission said that there was “nothing compelling” Youturn to reclassify Mr. Lovini and Mr. Jacob to a Level 4 role. It concluded that in an attempt to ensure equitable pay across its staff, the organisation had chosen to “tear the applicants down” rather than honouring their common law contract.
The Fair Work Commission noted that the decision to demote and effectively dismiss Mr. Jacob and Mr. Lovini was part of an effort to ensure equity for a “frustrated” group of female case officers. However, it said that this did not permit Youturn to arbitrarily decide to no longer be “held to its end of the bargain” with respect to the grandfathering agreement. The Commission said that “One does not break the proverbial glass ceiling by amputating the legs of the men above.” It further described the employer’s answer to gender equity concerns as “quite disappointing.”
The Commission concluded Mr. Jacob and Mr. Lovini had faced dismissal at the initiative of Youturn. This was because the demotion involved a significant reduction in remuneration and was initiated by the employer without employee consent, annulling their original employment contract. The Commission therefore ordered the duo’s Fair Work general protections claim to proceed to a conciliation between the parties.
In July 2025, a US woman had a huge legal victory in her quest to get justice for being overlooked for a promotion. Marlean Ames had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for over 15 years. She had maintained a record of high performance, rising from an executive secretary to a program administrator. In 2018, her performance evaluation indicated that she met or exceeded expectations in every category.
However, the trajectory of her career changed abruptly in 2019. When Ames applied for a newly created management position, the Department bypassed her in favor of a lesbian candidate. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Ames was informed that she was being demoted to her original secretarial role, a move that cut her hourly salary nearly in half. Her vacated administrator position was then filled by a gay man.
Ms. Ames subsequently took legal action via the US court system. She alleged that her employer’s decisions to pass her over for promotion and then demote her were not based on merit. Rather, Ms. Ames argued that these things happened as her employer had a preference for LGBTQ+ staff within her department. She pointed to the fact that her supervisor, the woman who received the promotion, and the man who took her old job were all gay, while she was a straight woman.
Ms. Ames sought relief under a specific section of US civil rights legislation that prohibits workplace discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation. However, her lawsuit was dismissed by lower courts before it could even reach a trial. One court applied the “background circumstances” rule. Under this rule, plaintiffs who are members of a “majority group”—such as white or heterosexual individuals—were required to provide extra evidence to prove that their employer was the “unusual” type to discriminate against the majority.
The court ruled that Ms. Ames could not show a pattern of such behavior or proof that the decision-makers at her former work had a specific bias against straight people. Therefore, her case lacked the evidence necessary to proceed.
But Ms. Ames’ case was soon escalated to the highest court in the US, the Supreme Court. It was tasked with resolving a split among various federal courts regarding the heightened standards for “majority” individuals. In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court annulled the lower court’s decision and revived Ms. Ames’s lawsuit. It clarified that civil rights legislation protects “any individual” regardless of their background. It found that the “background circumstances” rule was not valid as it was not supported by the legislation.
The Supreme Court said that the law had the same protections for every individual, notwithstanding their membership in a minority or majority group. This means that employees from majority groups do not face a higher burden of proof when filing discrimination lawsuits. As a result, Ms. Ames’ case was allowed to be reheard by lower courts. She will now have the opportunity to present her evidence under the newly clarified law and pursue her discrimination claim.
Read more: Physical Features Discrimination
When work ends badly or your rights are ignored, early advice can make all the difference. Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives supports employees nationwide with unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination and sexual harassment claims.
Our experienced workplace representatives provide confidential guidance and manage the process on your behalf, so you’re not left navigating Fair Work alone. Deadlines matter—most Fair Work claims must be lodged within 21 days of dismissal, and delays can cost you your entitlement to act. If something doesn’t feel right about how your employment ended, get advice now. Contact us at 1800 333 666 for free, confidential support.
