Over-55 Worker Wins Work-From-Home Order Due to Commute Fatigue

The Fair Work Commission has issued a work from home order requiring a university to allow a worker to work from home one day per week due to her increasingly tiring commute. The worker made a flexible work arrangement request to work from home two days per week on the basis that she was over 55. Her employer argued the request was invalid as the worker did not provide medical evidence of age-related fatigue. The Commission found the university had reasonable business grounds to refuse the two day request as the worker had to respond to walk-in enquiries. However, it ruled that she did not have to prove her age-related fatigue. The Commission considered it “fair” to order a six-month trial of one WFH day per week.

In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work flexible work arrangement case, Michele Duffy v Victoria University [2026]. Later, we look at why Fair Work refused a Brisbane worker’s request to work from home full time due to his ADHD and anxiety.

Case summary: Michele Duffy v Victoria University [2026]

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission VIC.
  
• Key employee argument: She made a valid request to work from home due to being aged 55 or older, on the basis it would reduce her commute fatigue.
  
• Key employer argument: She had not made a valid request because she gave no evidence that she suffered age-related fatigue.
  
• Fair Work ruling: The employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse. However, the request was valid and a six-month trial of one WFH day per week was ordered.

Read more: Working From Home: Advantages and Disadvantages

Flexible work arrangement: Requested WFH to lessen commute fatigue

Melbourne-based Michele Duffy started with Victoria University in 2008, first as a casual and then, from November 2011, as a full-time employee. She works as a student advisor at the City Tower Student Service Centre, the university’s busiest. Ms Duffy’s job is to respond to student enquiries via email and face to face at the Centre. She also conducts student progress appointments via phone, online and in-person.

For more than 12 months, Ms Duffy had taken one day of long service leave each week. When she was about to run out of it, she asked to work from home. On 27 June 2025, Ms Duffy formally lodged a flexible work arrangement request in accordance with section 65(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. She requested two WFH days per week, based on the fact that she was aged 55 or older. Ms Duffy said that the remote work arrangement would help “reduce physical fatigue associated with commuting” as well as help her be more productive and improve her wellbeing. She also said that her student phone appointments and email were suited to remote work.

Flexible work arrangement request refused, one WFH day offered

In July 2025, Victoria University asked for more details about her flexible work arrangement request, including medical advice. It also proposed a rostered day off cycle where Ms Duffy would have a day off every two or four weeks. Ms Duffy met her manager and an HR representative on 7 August 2025. When asked if there was a medical reason for her request, Ms Duffy said it was based on her age. On 10 August 2025, Ms Duffy proposed a trial of two WFH days per week until the end of the year, with a view to making it permanent. She said she was flexible about days, and would attend campus four or five days at peak times. She highlighted that her commute to the university campus was “increasingly tiring.” 

On 14 August 2025, Victoria University refused Ms Duffy’s flexible work arrangement request. It said that City Tower was its busiest centre, and that records showed that Ms Duffy’s bookings were more often face to face than online or by phone. The university offered a trial of one WFH day on Fridays until the end of the year. Ms Duffy asked for it to be reconsidered, as the records the university drew upon were for its busiest period. Her manager replied on 20 August 2025, repeating the offer. She said that Friday was the quietest day for in-person traffic, and Tuesday the next quietest.

Ms Duffy obtained a medical certificate from her GP in September 2025, but did not give it to the university until the Fair Work arbitration. She lodged a Fair Work flexible work arrangement claim with the Fair Work Commission on 21 November 2025. A conference was held in December 2025 which did not resolve the dispute, and Ms Duffy asked for it to be arbitrated.

Why did Ms Duffy argue the flexible work request refusal was not valid?

In her Fair Work flexible work arrangement claim made under section 65B of the Fair Work Act 2009, Ms Duffy argued:

• The university could not refuse her request, because it did not have regard to the consequences of a refusal for her.
  
• The refusal was not on reasonable business grounds. The university relied on general assertions about her role and in-person service. It did not show that the arrangement would materially affect operations.
  
• Many of her tasks, such as phone appointments and email enquiries, could be done from home.
  
• The university’s records covered March to August, its busiest period, and not the period of the proposed trial.
  
• She would work five days at peak times, and was flexible about which days she worked from home.

In response to the Fair Work flexible work arrangement claim, Victoria University argued that Ms Duffy’s request was not valid. This was because she gave no evidence of age-related fatigue, and did not provide medical evidence until the arbitration. The university contended that her role’s core purpose is to be available to answer student enquiries, including walk-ins. It claimed that Ms Duffy’s centre was the busiest, with high levels of walk-ins. The university also claimed that working from home would affect her productivity.

Read more: Carers Dealt Blow in Back-to-Back Fair Work WFH Rulings

Why did the Fair Work Commission order a WFH trial?

Ms Duffy’s Fair Work flexible work arrangement claim was decided by the Fair Work Commission in October 2026. It made the following findings:

• The flexible work arrangement request was valid, which Ms Duffy had shown was connected to her age. The Commission concluded that she “experiences fatigue from commuting” and that her proposed arrangement addresses that.
   
• The university’s issue was whether she suffered age-related fatigue, which the Fair Work Act 2009 does not require Ms Duffy to prove. She only had to show “a connection between the circumstances of being a worker over the age of 55 and the request.”
  
• The university did not respond to the request within 21 days, and its response to Ms Duffy did not address the consequences of refusing for her, or explain how to dispute the decision. However, her manager did discuss the request with Ms Duffy’s team leader and HR.
  
• The university had reasonable business grounds to refuse the request. A student advisor needs to be “available to respond to walk-in enquiries.” Other tasks are “subsidiary” to this.
  
• The cost of an extra casual to cover Ms Duffy’s WFH days was also a reasonable ground. 

Fair Work ordered six-month work from home trial

The Fair Work Commission found that Victoria University being able to refuse a request “does not necessarily mean” it could not make any orders. The Commission was satisfied there was no reasonable prospect of resolving the dispute without one. It was “reasonable and fair” for the university to implement its own alternative proposal of one WFH day.

The Commission ordered Victoria University to change Ms Duffy’s arrangements so she may work from home on Wednesdays, from 27 October 2026. This was set for at least six months. After that, the parties must consult and genuinely try to agree on her WFH day, and the arrangement will stay in place until they do.

WFH knocked back: Why worker with ADHD lost his case

In Darren Huxhagen v AWP Australia Pty Ltd t/a Allianz Partners [2026], a help desk worker with a disability requested to work from home full time. He had worked remotely for about ten months on medical advice. His employer offered a hybrid arrangement, and an independent psychiatrist said he could attend the office two days a week. The Fair Work Commission found the employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse. It dismissed his flexible work arrangement request claim without ordering any WFH arrangement.

Case summary: Darren Huxhagen v AWP Australia Pty Ltd t/a Allianz Partners [2026] 

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission QLD.
  
• Key employee argument: Remote work was necessary to manage his disability, and full-time WFH had worked for ten months with no business impact.
  
• Key employer argument: It had reasonable business grounds to refuse. It had adjusted his hours and a hybrid arrangement was consistent with the independent medical report.
  
• Fair Work ruling: The employer had reasonable business grounds. Flexible work arrangement request was dismissed.

Worked from home for ten months, then told to return to the office 

Darren Huxhagen started with Allianz Partners in December 2022 as a travel help desk worker. His contract named the Brisbane office as his work location. From December 2024, he worked from home under medical advice. In May 2025, his employer changed him to a permanent part-time arrangement of 30 hours a week with fixed hours.

In July 2025, an independent psychiatrist assessed Mr Huxhagen’s capacity to work. He found Mr Huxhagen had attention-deficit disorder and an anxiety disorder, which would be lifelong but had been managed well without medication. The psychiatrist found he was functioning well on 30 hours a week with increased time working from home. He advised that Mr Huxhagen should be able to attend the office for at least two shifts a week.

On 14 October 2025, Allianz told Mr Huxhagen to attend the office at least two days a week, with a quiet workspace. The same day, Mr Huxhagen made a flexible work request to keep working from home for all rostered hours. He said WFH helped manage his ADHD, social anxiety and depression. He said the office had bright lights that cause migraines, loud noise and unnecessary social interaction. He also said he used his lunch break at home to exercise.

Flexible work arrangement: Employer offered hybrid work and trial

On 3 November 2025, Allianz refused the flexible work arrangement request for operational reasons. It offered a staged return for Mr Huxhagen. This would start with a half day in the office on Fridays, then one day, then two days a week from the third month. Mr Huxhagen said medical advice meant he could not accept it, and lodged a Fair Work flexible work arrangement claim with the Fair Work Commission.

At a Commission conference on 22 December 2025, the parties agreed to a trial of a half day a week in the office. Mr Huxhagen’s GP said he would produce his best work at home. If a trial was necessary, she suggested accommodations including a quiet Friday, less noise and bright light and fewer interruptions. Allianz agreed to all five. Mr Huxhagen attended the office on 16 January 2026, but did not attend on 6 February 2026 after feeling overwhelmed. The report-back conference on 11 February 2026 could not resolve the dispute, and the parties agreed to have it determined on the papers by the Commission.

Why did the employer argue the flexible work arrangement should be refused?

In response to Mr Huxhagen’s Fair Work flexible work arrangement claim, Allianz argued to the Fair Work Commission:

• Mr Huxhagen had a disability and made a valid request. However, the independent medical report did not include the restrictions he listed, and supported two office days a week.
  
• Allianz had already accommodated him with reduced hours and a fixed schedule.
  
• Mr Huxhagen attended mandatory meetings inconsistently, and his remote work had affected engagement and reliability.
  
• Feedback was difficult to give, and he declined to attend the office when IT problems occurred.
  
• Allianz also cited the effect on team cohesion, coaching and supervision, availability during high-demand periods and outages, workplace health and safety, and equity.

Mr Huxhagen argued to the Commission that working from home was necessary to manage his disability. He claimed that none of the reasonable business grounds in the Fair Work Act 2009 applied. Mr Huxhagen also contended that his request would have no business impact, as he had worked remotely successfully for ten months.

Why did the Fair Work Commission dismiss the flexible work arrangement request?

Mr Huxhagen’s Fair Work flexible work arrangement claim was decided by the Fair Work Commission in March 2026. It dismissed the claim based on the following findings:

• Allianz cited ten business grounds. The Commission weighed each and found together they were reasonable business grounds to refuse full-time WFH. These included his inconsistent attendance at mandatory on-site requirements, team cohesion, coaching and supervision, and the need for on-site staff during busy periods.
  
• The employer had already made genuine changes, including part-time hours and a fixed schedule.
  
• The independent medical report supported a hybrid arrangement. Mr Huxhagen’s GP did not “directly contradict” that position, and the employer agreed to the accommodations she proposed.

Fair Work flexible work arrangement FAQs

1. Can I request to work from home if I’m 55 or older?

Yes. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, employees in certain circumstances can request a change in their working arrangements, including where they work. Qualifying circumstances include being 55 or older, having a disability, being pregnant, being a carer, caring for a child of school age or younger, and experiencing domestic violence.

In Michele Duffy v Victoria University [2026], a full-time worker requested to work from home two days per week. She made the request based on the fact she was over 55 and had a tiring commute. The Fair Work Commission found that she had made a valid request without medical evidence, because she showed a connection between her age and her request. It found the university had reasonable business grounds to refuse two days, but ordered a six-month trial of one WFH day a week. 

2. Can I request to work from home because of a disability?

Yes. Employees with a disability can request a flexible work arrangement, including working from home, if they have 12 months’ continuous service. The request must be in writing and set out the change sought and the reasons. An employer can only refuse after discussing the request and genuinely trying to reach agreement. It must respond to the request in writing within 21 days. A request can be denied if the employer has reasonable business grounds.

In Darren Huxhagen v AWP Australia Pty Ltd t/a Allianz Partners [2026], a worker with ADHD and an anxiety disorder asked to keep working from home full time. He claimed the office’s bright lights, noise and social interaction aggravated his symptoms. The Fair Work Commission found the employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse. These included his inconsistent attendance at mandatory requirements, team cohesion, supervision and on-site availability. It noted that the employer had already moved him to part-time hours and agreed to the accommodations his GP proposed. 

Have your rights been violated at work?

We at A Whole New Approach are an Australian workplace representation firm that acts only for employees. Led by principal Gary Pinchen, our team helps people with unfair dismissal, general protections, bullying, discrimination and workplace sexual harassment.

If your workplace rights have been violated, we can help you stand up for what’s right. Call us on 1800 333 666 any day of the week. Your first consultation is complimentary, and everything you tell us stays confidential.