Sydney Business Punished for Unfairly Dismissing Blind Worker

A Sydney business has been hit hard by the Fair Work Commission for unfairly dismissing a legally blind worker. The worker alleged the business told him he would still have a job if he could “drive or perform paper-based tasks”– tasks he could not preform due to being legally blind. The worker had been fired via text message while he was on holiday.

In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work Commission case Mr. Mark Coats v Palmers Group Pty Ltd Trading AS Palmers Relocations [2025]. We also share the story of a barber who was fired after his boss discovered he was blind. Also, an employee who was fired, ironically, by a health insurance company for “productivity issues” caused by their chemo treatment.

Sydney business gets karma for dismissing blind worker

Mark Coats began working for Sydney-based Palmers Relocations as a casual in April 2021. He is legally blind, and his role involved loading and unloading removalist trucks. A key reason for his dismissal, according to Palmers Relocations, were a series of “threatening” text messages he sent to managers. The company told the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Coats had sent these in April of an unknown year and in August 2023. The content of these messages were not disclosed to the Commission.

On 13 November 2024, while Mr. Coats was on a pre-approved holiday visiting his son in the United Kingdom, he received a text message from Palmers Relocations’ operations manager. This message informed Mr. Coats that “everyone [at Palmers Relocations] has been getting minimum hours.”

The manager also told Mr. Coats that he did not “appreciate all the messages you have sent.” He ended the message by saying the company would “no longer require your services.” Mr. Coats subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission.

Employer argued dismissal was redundancy

In its response to the unfair dismissal claim, Palmers Relocations made two key arguments as to why it terminated Mr. Coats. Firstly, the company claimed it was a genuine redundancy caused by a downturn in work. Secondly, it alleged that Mr. Coats had engaged in threatening behaviour towards management. This included the aforementioned text messages and in person interactions, Palmers Relocations claimed. It said that the operations manager was “scared” of Mr. Coats after being “threatened” by him.

Palmers Relocations further claimed that Mr. Coats attempted to gain the operations manager’s home address after his sacking, causing the manager to fear for his safety. A text message the company presented to the Commission showed Mr. Coats’ response to being asked about this. He said that he had sought the address as he had been “upset” about being “dismissed unfairly” and “treated like an idiot.” Mr. Coats said that he was “never going to do anything” and that he had just been “overcome by emotion.”

Worker argued discrimination

Mr. Coats argued to the Fair Work Commission that his dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. He claimed that Palmers Restorations had continued employing new staff around the time of his termination. Mr. Coats also refuted the allegations of threatening behaviour. He claimed that his text messages were either misinterpreted or lacked context.

He also claimed that he only inquired about the operations manager’s email address, not his home address, so he could formally contest his sacking. In his Fair Work application, Mr. Coats also raised a serious allegation of disability discrimination. He claimed that Palmers Restorations’ management had told him he would still have a job if he could “drive or perform paper-based tasks.”

Fair Work said redundancy not genuine

At Mr. Coats’ unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission found that Palmers Relocations did not present sufficient evidence to prove his termination was a genuine redundancy. In particular, the company did not prove that there had been a downturn in work.

The company also did not comply with Mr. Coats’ Award, which required it to consult with him about the redundancy and consider redeployment options. The Commission therefore ruled that the termination was not a genuine redundancy.

Threatening behaviour not proven

The Fair Work Commission also took issue with Palmers Relocations’ claims that Mr. Coats had been “threatening” to managers. It found the text messages the company provided lacked context. The texts did not clearly indicate Mr. Coats as the author, and there was no direct testimony from those allegedly threatened.

Mr. Coats’ explanation for seeking the operations managers’ email address post-dismissal was deemed plausible. Considering all this, the Commission found no valid reason for Mr. Coats’ termination.

Disability factored into unfair dismissal payout

The Fair Work Commission also noted that Mr. Coats was fired while overseas. He was also not given an opportunity to respond to the reasons for his termination. Palmers Relocations also did not warn or counsel Mr. Coats regarding any performance or conduct issues prior to his sacking. The Commission ultimately found that he had been unfairly dismissed.

Mr. Coats’ vision impairment was considered as significant factor in determining the appropriateness of a remedy. The Commissioner explicitly stated that Mr. Coats, as a “vision-impaired worker in low-skilled employment,” would likely face considerable “difficulties” in securing new employment.

This consideration directly informed the decision to award him eight weeks’ compensation. This acknowledged the potential length of time Mr. Coats might remain unemployed due to his disability and work history. While highlighting Mr. Coats’ “unwise” criticism of managers in text messages, this was not deemed sufficient to warrant a reduction in compensation for the unfair dismissal. The Commissions ordered Palmers Relocations to pay Mr. Coats $6,819 in lost income and $784 in superannuation.

Barber dismissed after blindness revealed wins AU$156K

This story, which made headlines back in 2015, comes to us from the US. The story involved 29-year-old Joel Nixon, who suffered from retinitis pigmentosa. The condition impacts peripheral vision and makes it difficult to see in low light, making him legally blind. So bad was his condition that Mr. Nixon told media that “I could wake up someday and be completely blind.” He maintained, however, that his condition did not affect his job.

He had worked at a barber shop in Norton, Massachusetts. About a year into his stint, his boss became aware of his vision impairment. Following this, Mr. Nixon was involved in an incident in which he tripped over a customer’s legs and later stumbled over a chair. He stated that immediately afterwards, his boss told him to leave. Despite pleading with his boss, Mr. Nixon was told to “pack his things,” dismissing him on the spot.

Dispute over reasons for dismissal

Mr. Nixon subsequently lodged a discrimination claim with a state commission. His boss denied that Mr. Nixon’s vision impairment was the reason for the dismissal. Mr. Nixon’s boss told media that his former employee’s claims were “a bunch of lies. His side of the story was that Mr. Nixon was not contributing adequately to the business. The boss also claimed he lacked a valid barber’s licence.

This, however, was untrue. An investigation found that while Mr. Nixon’s licence had expired in 2011, it was renewed shortly before his case was heard. Mr. Nixon’s legal representative argued that the licence issue did not prevent Mr. Nixon from performing his role.

Commission awarded huge unfair dismissal payout

In the end, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ruled in Mr. Nixon’s favour. The decision awarded him a total of $100,000 (approximately AU$156,000). Mr. Nixon’s boss did not attend the hearing and indicated his intention to appeal the ruling.

However, despite his legal win, Mr. Nixon found himself in a bleak period. He told media that he experienced prolonged unemployment. He said he was forced to apply for food assistance and his condominium went into foreclosure. But he soon rebounded to get a new job and cut hair for loyal customers, who refer to him as the “Blind Barber.”

Health insurance firm fires worker undergoing chemo

This story, which attracted online attention in May 2025, is another story of how employers can abuse the rights of disabled workers. It is also an example of perhaps why many people are not fans of insurance companies. It involved an anonymous analyst, who claimed on Reddit that their employer, an unnamed US health insurance company, dismissed him for “productivity issues.” The reason for his reduced productivity? They were undergoing chemotherapy.

According to the worker, the issues with their employer began when they were diagnosed with stage 2 lymphoma in late 2024. The worker said that upon learning of the diagnosis they spoke to their manager about accommodations for their illness. Their doctor had recommended working from home to reduce the risk of infection during chemotherapy.

The analyst provided their employer with a medical certificate and their manager initially agreed for them to work remotely. However, this all changed when the human resources department stepped in (we have previously written about whether it’s wise to trust HR departments).

Employer denied remote work, offered unpaid leave instead

According to the worker, HR said that remote work was a “privilege and not an accommodation.” This was despite his employer previously implementing company-wide remote work during Covid. The worker claimed that their employer’s stance violated federal disability protections that require accommodations for workers under certain conditions.

Instead of a remote working accommodation, the HR department offered the worker unpaid medical leave for the days they would have chemo sessions. On all other days, the employee was expected to work from the office. When they pointed out to HR that this violated federal law, the company told them “we employ 49 people, we’re exempt from [disability legislation] requirements.”

Performance managed during treatment

Forced to work in the office while undergoing chemo, the worker said they often went in with fatigue, nausea and a weakened immune system. They said that their “performance obviously suffered” as a result.

Following the second cycle of chemotherapy, the company placed the employee on a performance improvement plan. This was shortly followed by their dismissal due to not meeting productivity targets. The timing of the termination coincided with a period when the employee’s white blood cell count had dropped significantly.

Scum employer attempted to deny unemployment benefits

Following their dismissal, the employer contested the employee’s eligibility for unemployment benefits, claiming they were dismissed “for cause.” The worker then engaged a legal representative. This led to the discover that the company in fact employed 53 staff. This meant that it was liable to comply with federal disability legislation.

The worker subsequently lodged a complaint with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is still pending. The worker ended their Reddit post by highlighting the fact that their former employer was a health insurance company. But despite this, “they couldn’t show basic humanity to someone going through cancer treatment.”

Woman who ripped out her eyes dismissed for feeding stray cat

Finally, we will finish with a dismissal case that has one of the craziest backstories we have ever covered on our blog. This one made headlines in April 2025 and concerned US woman Kaylee Muthart. And a warning, the following could be distressing to some. Like the workers we covered previously, Ms. Muthart was blind. However, she had become blind after tearing out her eyes with her hands while suffering a meth-induced hallucination.

This took place in 2018, just days before she was set to enter rehab. She told media that she had done this to herself as she was convinced if she did not, “everything would end abruptly, and everyone would die.”

Ms. Muthart had gotten hooked on meth when she was 19 after a friend gave her a marijuana joint laced with the drug. Within a year, she was injecting meth. Her mum persuaded her to go to rehab, but she wanted one last high – injecting an extra dose that led to her hallucination.

Dismissed for feeding stray cats

The 27-year-old Ms. Muthart bounced back from the horrific ordeal, though. She eventually quit drugs, acquired prosthetic eyes and learned braille. She also landed a dishwashing job at a Florida restaurant. While working there, she noticed a stray cat with kittens living just outside the restaurant. Ms. Muthart started feeding them regularly, telling her friends on Facebook about it.

Soon enough, the property manager caught wind of her cat feeding and told her to stop. Ms. Muthart asked if the cats could be weaned off food rather than stop feeding them altogether. This request was denied, however. But she continued to feed the cats, and in December 2024, she said she was fired for it.

While the dismissal has been hard on her, Ms. Muthart said she had “no regrets,” having done what she “believed in my heart was right.” She was optimistic about future employment, hoping to secure a new position through a recruiter specialising in visually impaired individuals.

Have you been unfairly dismissed?

Our team can help you make a claim with the Fair Work Commission. But act fast, as you only have 21 days from the day of your dismissal to make a claim. We have helped over 16,000 Australian workers fight for their rights through the Commission. With our help, you can lodge the most compelling case to hold your employer to account.

 

Call us now on 1300 766 700 for a free and private conversation about your situation.