Dismissal for what someone says, or refuses to say, is fast becoming one of the most contentious issues in the workplace. In this article, we look at three recent unfair dismissal cases of workers who faced termination of employment for misgendering or insulting trans people.
These cases raise serious questions about compelled speech in the workplace. On one side of the argument, transgender employees may argue that they have the right to be referred to according to their preferred pronouns. On the other side of the argument, some workers may argue that they have the right to refuse using them.
In one case detailed below, a nurse refused to use a patient’s preferred pronouns due to her Christian beliefs. This raises the question of whether religious beliefs trump the rights of transgender workers to have their gender identity affirmed.
1. Perth worker dismissed for refusing to call workmate ‘they’
In August 2025, a 63-year-old Perth man reached a confidential settlement with his former employer after being fired for misgendering a non-binary colleague. The man had lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim which led to the two parties engaging in a confidential conciliation conference. The name of the man and his employer have not been revealed as the case was kept confidential by the Fair Work Commission. However, details leaked to the media after lawyers started discussing the case.
The misgendering reportedly happened in February 2025 during a workplace leadership course. The man, a high-earning professional, introduced a younger colleague using “he” instead of the colleague’s preferred “they/them” pronouns. The colleague was a biological male who identified as non-binary.
Unfair dismissal. Gave verbal apology, then ordered to give it in writing
The man reportedly gave the colleague an immediate verbal apology when corrected by another staff member. Reports suggest that the duo continued to work together cordially for the remainder of the training day, which involved role-playing scenarios. It was reported that the non-binary employee had previously told the man of their identity and was wearing a name badge that displayed their preferred pronouns.
However, the non-binary colleague later lodged a formal complaint with his employer. This then led the employer to direct the older worker to provide a formal written apology. He refused, arguing that no one could “be compelled” to call a workmate ‘they.’
Faced termination of employment, argued he had ‘right’ to refuse using pronouns
The company launched a formal investigation in March 2025, which eventually led to the man’s termination of employment. According to reports, the decision was influenced not only by the refusal to apologise but also by a significant backlash from younger co-workers who sided with the non-binary employee. The man then lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. He argued to the Fair Work Commission that if one person held an “arbitrary right” to a specific pronoun, another person should have the right to decline its use.
He contended that his termination of employment was unlawful and sought to escalate his case to the Federal Court. However, the Fair Work Commission reportedly told him that he may face a significant social backlash if he were to take the matter to court, where his identity would be revealed. This warning caused the man to agree to a confidential settlement with his former employer.
2. ‘Do not call me Mister!’: Nurse dismissed for misgendering female-identifying paedophile
In April 2025, a UK nurse faced termination of employment after having a confrontation with a transgender patient. Jennifer Melle, a 40-year-old senior nurse originally from Uganda, worked at St. Helier Hospital in Carshalton, near London. The incident began during a night shift when the unnamed transgender patient was brought to the ward from a men’s prison. The patient was a convicted paedophile who was jailed for luring young boys into sex acts by posing as a teenage girl on social media.
According to reports, the patient arrived at the hospital in chains, stood over six feet tall and was of a burly, masculine build. While discussing the patient’s clinical needs with a doctor over the phone, Ms. Melle, a devout Christian, referred to him as “mister” and “he.” She noted that she was discussing the removal of a catheter designed for a male patient and used the terminology to ensure medical accuracy. The patient overheard the conversation and began shouting, “Do not call me Mister! I am a woman!”
Paedophile used racial slur in response
Ms. Melle approached the patient and explained that she could not use female pronouns because it would violate her Christian faith. Then, she alleged that the sex offender lunged at her threateningly, requiring security intervention. During the outburst, the patient repeatedly targeted Ms. Melle with racial slurs, saying, “Imagine if I called you n**ger? How about I call you n**ger? Yes, black n**ger.”
Despite the patient’s history and the racial abuse directed at Ms. Melle, she was investigated by her employer for refusing to use the patient’s preferred pronouns. Her employer’s lawyers reportedly described Ms. Melle’s Christian beliefs as “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” They characterised her as a potential danger to the public for not adhering to the patient’s gender identity.
Faced termination of employment after her dispute went public
Following the investigation, Ms. Melle was given a final written warning and referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. However, after her story was picked up by the media, the hospital’s response intensified. She was summoned to a meeting that lasted less than five minutes, where she was accused of a potential data breach for whistleblowing to the press.
Ms. Melle was told the allegation amounted to gross misconduct and that she faced termination of employment. She was ordered to pack her belongings and was escorted from the hospital premises in tears. Ms. Melle told media that her employer expected her to “tolerate extreme racism” and “deny biological reality” as well as suppress her Christian beliefs in the name of inclusivity.
She is now pursuing a legal claim for harassment, discrimination and human rights breaches. Her legal representatives argue that her employer has effectively sided with a violent, racist criminal over a dedicated nurse with an unblemished record. A full employment tribunal hearing is expected to take place in 2026.
3. Prison supervisor dismissed for making anti-trans slurs about inmates
This story concerns the unfair dismissal VIC case Graeme Taylor v Department of Justice and Community Safety [2025]. Graeme Taylor started working for the predecessor agency of the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety in December 2001. He started as a prison officer but was promoted to the role of prison supervisor in 2017. At the time of his termination of employment, Mr. Taylor was working at the HM Prison Langi Kal Kal in Trawella, Victoria; some 150 kilometres north-west of Melbourne.
In September 2023, the Department initiated an investigation into claims that Mr. Taylor had made discriminatory and or disrespectful comments about transgender prisoners. It alleged that he had made a discriminatory comment in October 2022 and further comments between January and April 2023. Mr. Taylor’s Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings did not reveal the specifics of what he actually said. However, it was revealed that he had responded to the allegations in writing, partially admitting to the 2023 allegation.
Fair Work unfair dismissal. Supervisor transferred after allegation substantiated
In February 2024, the Department told Mr. Taylor that the 2023 allegation he had partially admitted to had been proven. It then proposed that Mr. Taylor be demoted to a senior prison officer role and transferred to the Hopkins Correctional Centre in Ararat, Victoria. Later in February, the Community and Public Sector Union intervened on his behalf, arguing that the sanction was disproportionate.
The union asserted that the demotion was a repudiation of his employment contract and “could very well be taken” as a termination of employment. But the Department proceeded with its decision and in April 2024 confirmed that Mr. Taylor would be demoted and transferred. In the next few months, Mr. Taylor’s representatives challenged the demotion and transfer. He engaged legal representation, who argued the disciplinary measure was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. They proposed three alternatives, including a return to his original prison or a financial separation. It was not until August 2024 that the Department rejected these options.
The process reached a conclusion in September 2024, when the Department emailed Mr. Taylor’s solicitors stating it “will continue” with the disciplinary outcome. This is when the reduction in Mr. Taylor’s remuneration finally took effect. Around a week later, Mr. Taylor lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission.
Employer argued Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was lodged late
The Department responded to Mr. Taylor’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim by lodging a jurisdictional objection. This was based on the fact that he had filed the claim after the 21-day time limit. The Department argued that Mr. Taylor’s termination of employment, if it occurred at all, took effect on 26 April 2024 when the final outcome letter was delivered. Meanwhile, Mr. Taylor argued that his termination of employment took effect on 17 September 2024. This was the day his actual remuneration was lowered from the prison supervisor classification to a senior prison officer classification.
The Fair Work Commission considered the jurisdictional objection in February 2025. At this hearing, Mr. Taylor’s counsel argued that his demotion was “disproportionate” to the seriousness of his conduct. They also contended that the Department failed to prove that no suitable positions existed at Mr. Taylor’s current location before forcing a transfer. Mr. Taylor specifically challenged the lack of clarity in the Department’s April letter, noting it did not specify when the reduction in pay would begin. He argued that the provision of the letter was merely “notice” of termination of employment, and not when it actually took effect.
However, all these arguments were moot as the Commission decided to throw Mr. Taylor’s case out, ruling that his application was filed too late.
Full Bench quashed decision and ordered redetermination
Mr. Taylor appealed the rejection of his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim with The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission. The Full Bench heard his appeal in August 2025, quashing the earlier ruling that had blocked Mr. Taylor’s claim. The Full Bench found that the original decision contained a jurisdictional error because it “assumed” a termination of employment had occurred rather than proving it. They ruled that when the date of termination is in dispute, the Commission must find the facts of the dismissal first. This is because the “power to allow more time” to make an application presupposes that there has in fact been a termination of employment.
The Full Bench also addressed a “representative error” by Mr. Taylor’s legal team, where a junior solicitor failed to lodge the appeal on time due to an “oversight” while instructing in a County Court jury trial. The Commission granted an extension of time for the appeal, noting that Mr. Taylor had acted promptly and provided instructions well within the limit. The Full Bench therefore allowed for an extension of time to Mr. Taylor as it was in “the interests of justice.”
Mr. Taylor’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was allowed to proceed. The Commission directed the parties to make further submissions so that the merits of his claim could be formally heard yet again.
Read more: What Landmark Rulings Mean for Trans Workplace Discrimination
Have you been unfairly dismissed?
A Whole New Approach (AWNA) helps workers across Australia take action when their workplace rights are breached. For over 20 years we’ve helped workers lodge unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination and sexual harassment claims, providing clear advice and hands-on support throughout the process.
If you want to lodge a claim, you need to act fast. Fair Work claims must be lodged within 21 days from the date of your sacking, and missing the deadline can mean losing your rights altogether. If you’ve been terminated or treated unlawfully at work, speak to someone who understands the system and can guide you forward. Reach out to us at 1300 766 700 for free, confidential advice today.
