The decision arose from allegations that the dismissal contravened anti-discrimination protections
The Federal Court has ordered the reinstatement of an applicant dismissed from a national aviation service provider and granted permission for the individual to participate in an upcoming Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting Services (ARFFS) training course.
The court’s decision arose from allegations that the dismissal contravened anti-discrimination protections under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The applicant, diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, successfully applied for a role as an aviation rescue firefighter in 2023. They disclosed their medical condition during the application process and later began employment and training in 2024. After 10 days in the training program, the applicant was dismissed from the course.
The applicant argued that the termination was based on their medical condition, constituting adverse action under s. 351 of the Fair Work Act. The section prohibits discrimination against employees due to physical or mental disabilities.
The Federal Court identified two significant legal questions to be addressed. The first concerned whether the applicant had passed the required medical examination under aviation industry standards. Evidence included a certification from a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner, who determined the applicant’s diabetes was well-controlled and did not pose safety concerns.
The second issue involved interpreting the relevant aviation regulations. The applicant asserted that meeting the medical standard could include allowances for conditions that do not endanger safety. A detailed protocol, developed with medical experts, outlined safeguards to ensure safety during employment. The court found these questions raised serious issues for trial.
The court weighed the hardship caused by the dismissal against the employer’s concerns. The applicant faced severe consequences, including financial strain, potential loss of housing, and mental health impacts. They had relocated and resigned from previous employment to pursue the role, intensifying unemployment challenges.
The employer argued that reinstatement risked non-compliance with safety regulations. However, the court noted that these risks were reduced by the controlled nature of the training environment and the applicant’s adherence to the medical protocol. The court also rejected the employer’s claim that monetary compensation would be an adequate remedy, emphasizing the value of meaningful employment.
The court directed the applicant to be reinstated and to participate in the January recruit course. While the employer suggested the course was full, it provided no evidence supporting this claim. The court deemed it reasonable to accommodate the applicant in the training program.
