In the decision Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1407 the Federal Court has ordered the defendant employer to pay its former State Manager more than $5 million in compensation.
The Case
Mr Roohizadegan started employment with TechnologyOne in 2006 and was summarily dismissed in May 2016, at which time his salary package and incentives exceeded $800,000. For much of his employment had been held in high regard by the company.
He brought a claim alleging a breach of his workplace protections by termination for having made seven bullying complaints throughout his employment. During the last few years of his employment he had come into conflict with some other personnel, raised complaints with HR about other senior managers, and informed them he was considering taking legal action.
The employer’s case was that he was dismissed because the profits in his section were stagnant, his team was in “crisis” and he was not working well with some other managers.
HR advised the management team to investigate issues around Mr Roohizadegan rather than take action to terminate his employment. The CEO rejected the advice and summarily dismissed Mr Roohizadegan without the company having fully addressed his complaints. Mr Roohizadegan had a serious mental breakdown and it was not in dispute that he became incapable of ever working again.
The Decision
The Federal Court found that the employer took adverse action against Mr Roohizadegan for the protected reason that, by his bullying complaints, he had made a complaint or enquiry in relation to his employment. The sole decision maker was the employer’s CEO who was fully aware of the bullying complaints when he made the decision to terminate the employment. The court observed that had he taken the advice of HR to investigate the issues raised by Mr Roozidegan, some issues may have been raised that the CEO would prefer not to explore.
Mr Roohizadegan was awarded future economic loss, compensation for share options, damages for breach of contract and general damages in pain and suffering. The company and the CEO were each fined with the fines to be paid directly to Mr Roohizadegan. The court commented that the high awards were warranted to achieve effective deterrence.
Implications
The case highlights that the courts will not tolerate management choosing to “stand with the bullies rather than the bullied”. Bullying complaints should be properly addressed before decisions are that may affect the employment of a complainant.
If you are facing a workplace bullying situation, contact a WorkLegal lawyer without delay.