S-x offender get dismissed for hiding past

Dismissed worker ‘humiliated’ after s-x crimes discovered. The Fair Work Commission has ruled on an unfair dismissal case involving an accountant who was fired for his criminal past. The accountant had used a fake name to land his job. However, his employer eventually found out that he had been convicted for multiple ch-ld abuse crimes. He said that this left him feeling “humiliated.” In this article, we look at the events of this unfair dismissal case – Aran Spottiswood v Brand Collective Australia [2024]. We also look at the case of an American worker who was fired by the world famous MSG arena after it was discovered he was a convicted ch-ld abuser.  

Sex offender accountant dismissed for hiding criminal past

Aran Spottiswood was dismissed from his position as Financial Accountant at Brand Collective Australia on 16 May 2024. His sacking came after the company uncovered that he was a convicted s-x offender. In November 2019, he pleaded guilty to multiple charges. This included s-xual penetration of a child under 16, involving a child in the production of ch-ld abuse material, and possession of ch-ld abuse material. He was found in the possession of over 1,800 images of ch-ld abuse material.

Accountant used fake name to get job

Mr Spottiswood was sentenced to four years in prison with a non-parole period of two years. He appealed the sentence, but it was upheld by the court. This conviction led to Chartered Accountants ANZ terminating Mr Spottiswood’s membership in February 2022. He was also placed on the s-x offenders register for life. Despite this sordid history, Mr Spottiswood managed to gain employment with Brand Collective Australia in June 2023. He, however, applied for the position under the name “Alan Dry” to conceal his criminal past. This name incorporated one of his middle names.

Accountant felt ‘humiliated’ after being outed

In April 2024, Mr Spottiswood’s legal name under which he was convicted of his crimes became public. This led to his name appearing in negative articles online. He told the Fair Work Commission that this left him feeling “humiliated.” Mr Spottiswood described his public outing as a “difficult and anxious” time, given his employer was still oblivious to his past. But Brand Collective Australia eventually learnt of his fake name and his horrible crimes.

S-x offender accountant lodges late unfair dismissal claim

Mr Spottiswood subsequently made an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission. However, he submitted it eight days late. The Fair Work Act 2009 states that an individual must lodge an application within 21 days of their dismissal. To proceed with his claim, Mr Spottiswood required the Fair Work Commission to grant an extension of time.

Accountant said sacking left him in ‘crippling state emotionally’

To explain the lateness of his claim, Mr Spottiswood argued that his sacking had triggered a mental health episode. He claimed this impaired his ability to gather the necessary information and seek legal advice. Mr Spottiswood also argued that the public exposure of his legal name and past offenses made it difficult for him to meet the deadline. He told the Fair Work Commission that his dismissal had left him in a “debilitative and crippling state emotionally, and somewhat even physically.” Mr Spottiswood provided evidence from a psychologist who stated that he had experienced significant mental distress.

 “[He] is not a victim:” S-x offender’s argument fall flat at Fair Work Commission

The Fair Work Commission had to decide whether there were “exceptional circumstances” justifying an extension of time, which is a requirement of the Fair Work Act 2009. It disagreed with Mr Spottiswood’s claim that the mental turmoil he experienced after his sacking met this criterion. “[The accountant’s] criminal convictions and the events from mid-April 2024 are not ‘extraordinary circumstances that engulfed’ [his] life as he claims,” the Fair Work Commission stated. It further stated that Mr Spottiswood was “the architect” of his own troubles and that “[He] is not a victim.”

Accountant prioritised Centrelink over Fair Work claim

The Fair Work Commission took issue with the fact that Mr Spottiswood had sought to register for Centrelink payments before making his unfair dismissal claim. Mr Spottiswood testified that he had been living at his mother’s house since May 2024 and had access to food and shelter. This undermined his argument that he needed to prioritise securing Centrelink benefits over filing the application. The Fair Work Commission concluded that Mr Spottiswood was “not so debilitated that he was unable to complete the numerous steps” required to organise payments. It also noted that Mr Spottiswood had researched the law around unfair dismissals prior to making his claim. This was found to prove that his debilitation was not such to prevent him from making a claim on time.

Psychologist’s assessment gets rejected

With respect to the psychologist’s testimony, the Fair Work Commission said that it did not state that Mr Spottiswood was incapable of lodging a claim on time. It was also found that it did not explain why he submitted it eight days late. The commission found that the psychologist was not familiar with the forms used to make a claim. Upon seeing it, she said that Mr Spottiswood would have been able to submit the claim on time. But she later changed her opinion. “The guarded demeanour, obfuscation and contradictory evidence does not give me cause to give any weight to [the psychologist’s] evidence regarding the [accountant’s] capacity to file either within, or outside, the 21-day period,” the Fair Work Commission said.

Fair Work finds accountant’s claims wanting

The Fair Work Commission also assessed the merits of Mr Spottiswood’s unfair dismissal claim. Brand Collective Australia had said that he was fired because he misrepresented that he was a member of Chartered Accountants ANZ. It also sacked him because he did not disclose convictions that would be incompatible with his duty as an employee. Mr Spottiswood had included ‘CA’ on his application. He argued that this was “to avoid confusion with the CPA organisation.” The Fair Work Commission found this explanation to be “breathtaking.” It also deemed that he had used a fake name to “create a ‘whole world’ in which his real identity was hidden.”

Accountant’s late claim gets rejected

Mr Spottiswood had argued that he was discriminated against by being sacked for his criminal history. However, the Fair Work Commission rejected this assertion. It stated that his termination was due to his decision to “confect” a fake identity to “avoid identification.” The commission said that his criminal past was a “relevant factor that should not have been hidden from his employer.” It also stated that Mr Spottiswood “likely” violated his contract. The Fair Work Commission therefore concluded that the “merits of the case are not strong” and rejected his unfair dismissal application.

Child r-pist usher sues world famous arena for wrongful dismissal

In October 2023, another story of a worker being fired for his very shady past made global headlines. It involved 59-year-old Stevie P Robinson, who was an usher at the world famous New York City arena Madison Square Garden (MSG). Mr Robinson was fired from his position after his employer MSG Entertainment discovered that he is a child r-apist. He was convicted in 2000 for the r-pe and s-xual abuse of a six-year-old girl, for which he was given 20 years in prison. Mr Robinson is also a registered sex offender. In 2023, he filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit against MSG Entertainment.     Shortly after securing parole, in December 2021 Mr Robinson landed a job at MSG – an arena that hosts some of the world’s most prominent entertainment and sporting events. In his lawsuit he described himself as a “big fan of the New York Knicks” s – the NBA team that plays home games at MSG. He said that he had “been patronising MSG all of his life, as a fan.

Parole officer outed s-x offender

However, in August 2022 Mr Robinson’s parole officer contacted MSG Entertainment to verify that he was meeting his parole obligations. He enquired if he was maintaining gainful employment as required by the terms of his post-release supervision. This led MSG Entertainment to discover his horrendous crimes. The company dismissed him shortly after.

Claims sacking was discrimination

In his lawsuit, Mr Robinson argued that MSG unlawfully dismissed him “solely on the basis of a past criminal conviction.” He said that he had passed MSG’s background check before being hired. And he was “never advised or told that there was any problem,” the lawsuit stated. Mr Robinson’s lawyers argued that his criminal history had “no direct relationship to” his duties as an usher at MSG.    

MSG claims usher falsified information

MSG Entertainment, however, had a different take on why Mr Robinson’s background check came back clean. In the response to the lawsuit, the company claimed the usher had falsified his background check information to obtain employment. It came to know this while actioning Mr Robinson’s firing. MSG Entertainment also claimed Mr Robinson had breached workplace policy for inappropriate behavior.

“Be On the Lookout”: Coworkers share document

Mr Robinson’s legal team also alleged that MSG Entertainment employees discriminated against him after they learned of his criminal past. The lawsuit claimed that they had circulated a document within the organisation that highlighted his crimes. The document, labeled “BOLO” (Be On the Lookout), contained Mr Robinson’s photo along with information about his status as a registered s-x offender. It was allegedly shared with “dozens” of MSG Entertainment employees and warned that Mr Robinson was “a registered s-xually violent offender with a high-risk level.” The document also instructed employees to contact MSG security if they saw mr Robinson on or near the venue’s property. The lawsuit claimed that this action was taken to “discriminate against” and “humiliate” Mr Robinson solely based on his prior conviction.

S-x offender also claimed disability discrimination

Mr Robinson’s lawsuit also stated that he had “suffered from disabilities,” including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Due to his condition, he had sought assistance from MSG’s staff office for help with job functions. Mr Robinson claimed that his frequent visits to the staff office were later used as a pretext for his dismissal. In August 2022, Mr Robinson alleged that a security team member at MSG advised him that he “should not enter the staff office if [he] did not need to.” However, he continued to visit the office when necessary because he “did not know where else to get the assistance he needed.”

Usher seeking damages

Mr Robinson is seeking unspecified damages as part of his lawsuit. His lawyers argue that MSG Entertainment violated both state and city laws by dismissing him based on his criminal record. In response to the lawsuit, MSG Entertainment has maintained that Mr Robinson’s claims are without merit. “We are aware of the lawsuit and believe that facts will support a conclusion that his claims are wholly without merit,” a spokesperson for the company said.

Not sure where to turn with your workplace issue?

At A Whole New Approach, we’re not lawyers — we’re Australia’s leading workplace advisors. We’ve helped thousands of employees with their workplace disputes and problems. To discuss the options available in your situation and understand your employee rights, call us now for a free, no-obligation consultation. We handle a wide range of  industrial relations matters — from unfair dismissal and forced resignation to adverse actions and workplace investigations.  Reach out now to explore your options — or give us a call on 1300 766 700.