An Aldi worker who used AI to draft his entire Fair Work unfair dismissal claim has been ordered to pay some of his former employer’s legal costs. The worker’s AI-generated submissions repeatedly addressed “the wrong question” regarding his eligibility to make a claim. This was even after the Commission spelled out the correct legal test to him twice by email. The Fair Work Commission found he unreasonably continued his claim despite warnings it could not succeed. The worker was forced to pay $1,230 for his “hopeless” claim.
In this article, we look at the events of this unfair dismissal NSW case Sadnan Khan v Aldi Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we’ll look at the case of another Aldi worker – a NZ influencer with a large social media following – who was fired for getting into a scuffle with a customer.
Case summary: Sadnan Khan v Aldi Pty Ltd [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission NSW.
- Key employer argument: The worker had been repeatedly told his claim could not succeed, yet continued it regardless
- Key employee argument: He was eligible to make a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim as he had served the minimum employment period.
- Fair Work ruling: The worker based his claim on “wrong ‘advice’ given by AI.” He was ordered to pay $1,230 towards Aldi’s costs.
Unfair dismissal NSW: Worker misunderstood eligibility requirements
Sydney-based Sadnan Khan began working for Aldi as a store assistant in late September 2025. He faced summary termination of employment on 26 March 2026, receiving one week’s pay in lieu of notice. Just six hours later, Mr Khan lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. Under section 383 of the Fair Work Act 2009, an employee generally needs to have completed at least six months of employment before they are eligible to lodge a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. This is calculated up to the date they are given notice of their termination of employment.
Mr Khan had been notified of his sacking three days short of that six-month mark. Two days after lodging, the Fair Work Commission emailed him to say that he may not meet the minimum employment period. The email referenced “the date you were notified of your dismissal.” Despite this warning, Mr Khan’s Fair Work claim and the submissions he filed focused on the date his employment actually ended, not the day he was notified.
Read More: Uber Again Balks At Gig Worker Protections
Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was riddled with AI slop
Examining Mr Khan’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, the Fair Work Commission noted that it contained visible AI drafting notes left in by mistake. This included the phrases “Here is your final clean copy-paste version, with today’s date inserted as the dismissal date.” There was also a sentence in there emphasising “reasonable practical exceptions exist in real life beyond the written rules (‘book world’).”
Ahead of a scheduled hearing, the Commission reviewed the parties’ materials and formed the view that Mr Khan’s case was “hopeless.” On 31 July 2026, the Fair Work Deputy President personally emailed Mr Khan explaining that the relevant date was when he was told he was being dismissed, not when his employment ended. The Commissioner invited him to discontinue his claim.
Unfair dismissal NSW: Worker continued claim despite warnings
Mr Khan’s reply that same morning again addressed the wrong date and repeated the same AI-generated arguments, without engaging with the Fair Work Commission’s specific concerns. Aldi then indicated it would seek a costs order if Mr Khan continued. That afternoon, the Deputy President sent another email in stronger terms, stating there was “a very strong likelihood that your case will not win.” The Deputy President also said that if he lost, there would be a “very strong argument” for him to pay Aldi’s costs. The email noted Mr Khan appeared to be relying on AI and referenced media reports of workers pursuing cases based on incorrect AI-generated advice.
Despite all these warnings, Mr Khan sent two further AI-generated submissions to the Commission that continued to focus on the wrong date. One submission was titled “WHY THE AUTHORITY RELIED UPON BY THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOES NOT PROPERLY APPLY TO THE PRESENT MATTER.” At a Fair Work hearing on 5 August 2026, the Deputy President again took Mr Khan through the wording of section 383 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Khan conceded for the first time that he had not served the minimum employment period. He then decided to discontinue his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
Read More: Fake AI Evidence Sinks Fair Work General Protections Claim
Why did the Fair Work Commission order the worker to pay costs?
Section 400A of the Fair Work Act 2009 allows the Fair Work Commission to order a party to pay costs caused by their own unreasonable act or omission. Aldi applied for and was awarded costs under this law. The Commission found that Mr Khan’s continuation of his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim after 31 July 2026 was unreasonable because:
- The Commission’s emails had explained the correct eligibility requirements “in plain English” and left “no room left for misinterpretation.”
- Mr Khan did not need to be a lawyer to understand the emails he received. He was responsible for assessing whether his claim was viable rather than “blindly” submitting AI-generated material.
- Using AI to help draft submissions was not itself unreasonable. However, continuing a claim in the face of clear advice that it could not succeed was unreasonable.
- Mr Khan’s unreasonable conduct directly caused Aldi to incur costs in preparing for and attending a hearing that should never have occurred.
- There was no financial risk to Mr Khan in discontinuing his claim. Doing so may even have entitled him to a partial refund of his filing fee.
Fair Work called out growing concern of AI-generated claims
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President noted there have recently been many news stories about workers pursuing Fair Work claims “based on wrong ‘advice’ given by AI.” He said that awarding costs would help “deter Mr Khan, and hopefully other applicants in the same position,” from continuing claims based on uncritical reliance on AI advice.
In the end, the Commission ordered Mr Khan to pay Aldi $1,230. This was to compensate for the company’s two hours preparing a digital hearing book, three hours preparing for the hearing and one hour attending it. The Commission noted that Aldi’s legal fees were likely substantially more than the costs amount awarded. It summed up the situation by saying that “there has been no winner in this matter.”
NZ influencer sacked by Aldi over customer confrontation
Another recent Fair Work unfair dismissal case involving an Aldi worker is Hohaia v ALDI Foods Pty Ltd as General Partner of ALDI Stores (A Limited Partnership) [2026]. The worker, Tamati Hohaia, is known to his over 100,000 social media followers as Maori Einstein. Mr Hohaia was fired for getting into a physical altercation with an aggressive customer. The Fair Work Commission found he had breached clear workplace policy by failing to walk away and instead continuing to engage with the customer. The Commission deemed the worker’s actions serious misconduct, rejecting his argument that he had acted in self-defence.
Case summary: Hohaia v ALDI Foods Pty Ltd [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission South Australia
- Key employee argument: He acted in self-defence or in defence of another person by intervening in a confrontation between two customers.
- Key employer argument: The worker’s conduct breached its policy on handling aggressive customers, justifying summary termination of employment.
- Fair Work ruling: There was a valid reason for the dismissal, and it was not harsh. The application was dismissed.
Worker intervened in aggressive customer interaction
Adelaide-based Tamati Hohaia started as a store assistant for Aldi in November 2021. The incident that led to his termination of employment took place towards the end of his shift on 26 September 2025. Mr Hohaia noticed that a customer was behaving aggressively towards another customer, and decided to intervene. The incident was captured on CCTV.
Following Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings, Mr Hohaia shared details of the incident with his followers and New Zealand media. He claimed he had intervened because he heard a female customer telling a man to “leave me alone, don’t touch me.” Mr Hohaia later discovered the pair were in a relationship. He said that the man was pulling on her arm, so he stepped in to tell him “excuse me sir, you need to stop.”
Mr Hohaia claimed that the man then became aggressive and attempted to headbutt him, so he “just automatically started firing back at him.” When the man tackled him, Mr Hohaia used a “jiu jitsu technique” in an attempt to apprehend him. He then pushed the man out of the store. Mr Hohaia claimed that he felt unsafe disengaging from the man as he feared for himself and his colleagues.
Aldi’s policy for dealing with aggressive or violent customers requires staff to remove themselves from the situation and contact a manager. Mr Hohaia had been trained in the policy, which was displayed on a poster all staff could regularly see. A day after the incident, Aldi sent Mr Hohaia a letter setting out the allegations. They were later substantiated, and he faced termination of employment on 13 October 2025.
Tamati Hohaia – Credit – Facebook
Why did the employee argue his dismissal was unjustified?
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr Hohaia argued:
- His actions during the incident amounted to self-defence or defence of another person, meaning they were not serious misconduct.
- He was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. He was shown but not provided with a copy of the CCTV footage.
- The unreasonably short timeframe to respond and repeated failure to provide requested documents suggested the outcome had already been predetermined.
- He had an otherwise clean employment record of almost four years.
Why did the Fair Work Commission find the dismissal was justified?
Mr Hohaia’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in March 2026. His claim was rejected for the following reasons:
- Mr Hohaia was aware of Aldi’s policy not to stand in an aggressive customer’s way, argue with them or put himself in danger.
- CCTV footage showed Mr Hohaia engaging in conduct prohibited by Aldi’s policy.
- Mr Hohaia’s conduct may have initially been in self-defence. However, he continued to initiate contact with the other person rather than disengage.
- His failure to comply with the policy caused the situation to escalate to a point where he became the aggressor.
- His actions created a serious risk to the health and safety of himself, the other person involved and his colleagues. This met the definition of serious misconduct.
- Granting Mr Hohaia’s access to a copy of the CCTV footage, as opposed to being shown it, would not have affected his ability to respond to the allegations. He had been given sufficient time and opportunity to do so.
- His nearly four years of clean service did not make the dismissal harsh, given the seriousness of conduct that directly breached policies he knew about.
Unfair dismissal FAQs
-
Is it risky to use AI to prepare a Fair Work claim?
Using AI tools to help draft correspondence or submissions is not automatically a problem, but tribunals have warned that AI-generated legal arguments can be based on incorrect or irrelevant advice, and a self-represented litigant remains personally responsible for checking that what they file actually addresses the legal test that applies to their case.
In Khan v Aldi Pty Ltd [2026], the Fair Work Commission found the worker’s AI-generated submissions repeatedly focused on the wrong legal question, even after the Commission twice explained the correct test to him directly and in clear terms. The Commission found that continuing to rely on this material without properly engaging with the specific concerns raised was unreasonable, and factored this into its decision to order a costs payment against him.
-
Does claiming self-defence protect an employee from dismissal?
Not automatically. If you are involved in an altercation, the validity of a self-defence argument depends on the specific circumstances. Factors that need to be considered include whether you had reasonable alternatives, such as walking away, and whether you continued to engage after any initial threat had passed.
In Hohaia v ALDI Foods Pty Ltd as General Partner of ALDI Stores [2026], the Fair Work Commission accepted the worker’s conduct may have initially been in self-defence. However, there were clear points during the incident where he continued to initiate contact with the other person rather than remove himself from the situation, as his training required. His self-defence argument did not prevent a finding that he had engaged in serious misconduct.
We can help you get justice for unfair dismissal
As the case in this article shows, using AI as your legal advisor carries huge risks. Getting professional advice from those who understand Fair Work rules can ensure you get your claim right. Our team at A Whole New Approach have helped over 16,000 Australian workers pursue Fair Work claims.
Your first consultation is free and completely confidential, and we work on a no-win, no-fee basis. Strict time limits apply to Fair Work claims, so don’t wait. Call us seven days a week on 1300 766 700.
