Sacked worker’s ADHD defence rejected by Fair Work

ADHD defence rejected by Fair Work: The Fair Work Commission has upheld the dismissal of a full-time Melbourne worker with ADHD who claimed he could only work four hours per week in a “non-stressful” role. The worker was repeatedly late for work, absent without explanation and failed to properly perform tasks. His employer allowed flexible start times and hybrid working privileges. Despite this, the worker again failed to turn up to work one day, only responding by text at 11:41am to say he had slept through his alarm. He was later dismissed as he could not perform the inherent requirements of his role. The Fair Work Commission agreed with that decision, finding it was “difficult to envisage” a “less co-operative” employee.

In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work unfair dismissal case: Yau Yong Ryan Sim v Monash Health [2026]. Later, we’ll look at the case of another worker with ADHD who claimed her employer’s refusal to accommodate her lack of punctuality forced her to resign.

Case Summary: Yau Yong Ryan Sim v Monash Health [2026]

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission Victoria.
• Key employer argument: The worker was fairly dismissed as he could not perform the inherent requirements of his role. He arrived late to work, had unexplained absences and failed to properly complete tasks.
• Key employee argument: Certificates of capacity from his doctor did not state he had no capacity to work at all due to his ADHD. His employer had other options available, such as arranging an independent medical examination, rather than dismissing him.
• Fair Work outcome: Dismissal justified. The worker could not perform the requirements of his role and refused to supply further information about his capacity to work.

Read more: From Gag Orders to Empowerment: Why Victoria’s NDA Ban Is a Feminist Victory in Law

Performance issues emerged within weeks of starting

Melbourne-based Yau Yong Ryan Sim started working for Monash Health, one of Victoria’s largest public health services, on 22 January 2025. He was employed as an international medical graduate affairs coordinator, on a contract due to end on 1 March 2026. Within weeks, his managers noticed performance issues. This included failing to attend work on time, unexplained absences and failing to complete tasks to the required standard.

On 7 February 2025, Mr Sim told his manager that he had ADHD, which he said affected his time perception, attention, focus and productivity. In response, Monash Health developed a support plan that included flexible start times, hybrid working arrangements and mentoring. Mr Sim’s performance issues continued despite this. In April 2025, he failed to attend work or notify anyone of his absence, only responding by text at 11:41am to say he had slept through his alarms and was “exhausted.”

Worker threatened to complain to MPs after bullying complaint rejected

Following a motor vehicle accident, Mr Sim took personal leave, and his last day at work before his dismissal was 14 May 2025. Around this time, he made a complaint to Monash Health alleging workplace bullying by a colleague and an unbalanced workload. In June 2025, Monash Health advised Mr Sim that his allegations had not been corroborated after an investigation. 

He responded by claiming that Monash Health had not made adjustments to ensure a “psychologically safe” workplace upon his return. Mr Sim also threatened to escalate the matter by making a workers compensation claim and a Fair Work general protections claim. Mr Sim also said that he would make a public interest disclosure and complain to the Victorian Public Sector Commission. He also threatened to raise the matter with members of Parliament.

Unfair dismissal VIC: Employer’s requests for medical information refused

Mr Sim submitted a workers compensation claim on 13 June 2025, which was later rejected. He provided a series of certificates of capacity from his doctor between June and November 2025. These indicated he had capacity to work only two hours per day, two days per week, in a “non-stressful role.” This was due to a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression.

Between July and October 2025, Monash Health made repeated requests to Mr Sim for further medical information from his doctor. The organisation sought clarity on what “non-stressful work” meant, the expected duration of his restrictions, and what reasonable adjustments might be possible. Mr Sim consistently declined to provide this information, citing privacy concerns under the Health Records Act 2001 (Vic).

On 21 August 2025, Monash Health requested further medical information from Mr Sim. On 24 October 2025, having received no further information, Monash Health wrote to Mr Sim stating it was considering termination of employment as he could no longer perform the inherent requirements of his role. Mr Sim replied only to note that related matters were before the Fair Work Commission and the Workplace Injury Commission. On 28 November 2025, Mr Sim was notified his employment would be terminated effective 3 December 2025. He received four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.

Why did the worker argue his dismissal was unfair?

In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr Sim argued:

• His certificates of capacity indicated he had some capacity to work and did not indicate he could not return to his role in the foreseeable future.
• Monash Health could have taken other steps before dismissing him. This included proposing alternate duties, requesting narrower medical information or arranging an independent medical examination.
• Monash Health had not complied with its long term ill and injured procedure or the applicable enterprise agreement, which set out processes for managing fitness for work.
• The support plan implemented after his ADHD disclosure was not a fair or transparent formal reasonable adjustment process.
• He was treated differently to other employees in terms of workplace flexibility.

In response to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Monash Health argued that Mr Sim’s certificates of capacity indicated he could perform only around 10 per cent of his full-time role. His persistent refusal to provide further medical information over several months meant it had no reasonable basis to expect his capacity would improve.

Why did Fair Work rule the dismissal was not unfair?

Mr Sim’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in July 2026. It found that Monash Health had fired Mr Sim for a valid reason relating to his capacity, and that his termination of employment was not unfair. This was based on the following findings: 

• Mr Sim was unable to fulfil the inherent requirements of his full-time role.
• He did not provide Monash Health with any medical evidence regarding his claimed ADHD.
• His own evidence confirmed his incapacity had continued through to the date of the hearing, undermining any suggestion his restrictions were temporary.
• Mr Sim “laboured under the misapprehension” that it was Monash Health’s sole responsibility to determine what adjustments he required.
• Monash Health’s repeated requests for further information, “on at least 10 occasions,” had gone unanswered.
• The Commission found it “difficult to envisage” a situation where an employee “could have been less co-operative.”
• Monash Health had not acted hastily as it gave Mr Sim numerous opportunities to provide relevant information before making its decision.
• An independent medical examination was not mandatory. It was “disingenuous” for Mr Sim to suggest one should have been arranged, given his persistent refusal to provide requested information.

Fair Work backs employer’s punctuality stance in ADHD case

Another Fair Work case where ADHD was a major factor in an employee’s termination of employment is Carly Peat v Open Door Pub Co. Pty Limited, Clare Lodge [2026]. The worker lodged a Fair Work general protections claim arguing that her employer’s lack of support for her ADHD amounted to discrimination. Her employer disagreed, telling her that “at the end of the day, we need you to show up to work on time.” She later resigned, arguing that she was constructively dismissed as her employer failed to support her. However, the Fair Work Commission disagreed, ruling that she had been supported and had voluntarily resigned. 

Case Summary: Carly Peat v Open Door Pub Co. Pty Limited, Clare Lodge [2026]

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission NSW
• Key employee argument: She was forced to resign due to her employer’s inadequate response to her ADHD disclosure. It had refused to accommodate her difficulties with punctuality.
• Key employer argument: The employee resigned voluntarily after being informed that punctuality remained an inherent requirement of her role.
• Fair Work outcome: There was no constructive dismissal, the employee resigned of her own free will. 

Read more: ADHD Worker Unfair Dismissal Claim Fails After Workplace Abuse

Fair Work general protections: Promotion exacerbated worker’s ADHD symptoms

Sydney-based Carly Peat started working as a bar supervisor for Open Door Pub Co. on 16 January 2024. When she started at the company, she had not disclosed her ADHD diagnosis. Ms Peat was promoted to functions and events manager in April 2025. During Fair Work general protections proceedings, the Commission noted that the stress and responsibility that came with this new role appeared to exacerbate her ADHD symptoms. This resulted in Ms Peat frequently being late for work and needing to complete admin tasks after hours.

Ms Peat disclosed her ADHD diagnosis to the company on 23 June 2025. This prompted Open Door to offer access to its employee assistance program and provide her with time off. When Ms Peat was late again on 9 July 2025, she conceded she had not yet contacted the employee assistance program. She later attended a session on 11 July 2025.

Worker lodged formal discrimination complaint

On 25 August 2025, Ms Peat made a formal complaint of “Disability Discrimination Based on ADHD” to Open Door’s HR. The following month, the company wrote to Ms Peat stating that “at the end of the day, we need you to show up to work on time.” Open Door maintained that it had tried to make accommodations for Ms Peat’s ADHD and that it would continue to support her. However, the company stressed that “ultimately…the position that you are required to attend work on time remains unchanged” as this was integral to operations.

Ms Peat resigned that same day. She wrote to Open Door saying that she couldn’t work for a company that  “refuses to acknowledge” the lack of support it provided when she disclosed her ADHD. The company accepted her resignation the following day, confirming her outstanding entitlements would be paid in the next pay run.

Why did the worker argue she was constructively dismissed?

In her Fair Work general protections claim, Ms Peat argued that she had been forced to resign because:

• Open Door had failed to provide meaningful support following her ADHD disclosure.
• She had engaged with the company’s process in good faith, seeking reasonable adjustments, but this left her with no confidence in the company’s commitment to supporting her.
• Open Door’s continued insistence on punctuality, despite her disclosed ADHD, amounted to adverse and punitive treatment.

In response to the Fair Work general protections claim, Open Door argued that Ms Peat had resigned voluntarily. The company highlighted that she had been offered genuine support throughout her employment and time off. She had also been offered a transfer to a different venue in a role she had previously performed successfully, which she did not accept.

Why did Fair Work find the worker was not constructively dismissed?

The jurisdictional objection to Ms Peat’s Fair Work general protections claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in January 2026. It ruled that she had voluntarily resigned and therefore dismissed her claim. This was based on the following findings:

• Open Door’s correspondence immediately prior to Ms Peat’s resignation “clearly states that it was [the company’s] priority to continue to support” her.
• The company had offered to continue employing Ms Peat in a different role. The Commission said it was “unfortunate” she did not take up this offer.
• Punctuality and the ability to open the venue on schedule were inherent requirements of Ms Peat’s role.
• Ms Peat’s inability to meet this requirement or complete admin tasks within normal hours meant she had voluntarily resigned because she “simply could not satisfactorily undertake the role.”

Fair Work FAQs

• Can my employer sack me if I have ADHD?

Yes, an employer can lawfully dismiss a worker with ADHD if the condition genuinely prevents them from performing the inherent requirements of their role. However, the employer must have made reasonable efforts to support and accommodate them beforehand. Having a disclosed condition does not automatically protect an employee from dismissal if their capacity to work falls well short of what the role requires.

In Yau Yong Ryan Sim v Monash Health [2026], the Fair Work Commission upheld the dismissal of a worker with ADHD and anxiety who could only work four hours per week in a “non-stressful role.” The Commission found he had repeatedly refused to provide further medical information that could have helped his employer assess possible adjustments.

• What reasonable adjustments can be made at work for ADHD?

Reasonable adjustments for ADHD can include flexible start times, hybrid or remote working arrangements and extra support with time management. It can also include access to counselling and an employee assistance program. 

In Carly Peat v Open Door Pub Co. Pty Limited, Clare Lodge [2026], the Fair Work Commission found that a worker with ADHD had been offered genuine support, including employee assistance program access, time off and a transfer to another role. However, her employer was still entitled to require her to be punctual, given this was an inherent part of her position.

Read more: Fair Work Rejects Bank Manager’s Flexible Work Request

Have you had your workplace rights violated?

A Whole New Approach is an employee-only firm, meaning we only ever act for workers, never employers. With more than 40 years of combined experience, our team can help you use the Fair Work system to get the compensation you deserve. If you have been unfairly dismissed, faced discrimination, sexual harassment, bullying or another workplace rights violation, get in touch with us today.

Your first consultation is free, and all consultations remain private and confidential. We work on a no win, no fee basis. Call us on 1300 766 700 seven days per week.