Up to nine seizures a day, a brain lesion and a resignation email HSI says tells another story
An HR manager filed her claim 35 days late. A year of misdiagnosed seizures bought her the extra time.
In a decision dated September 23, 2026, the Fair Work Commission gave the former HR manager at HSI APAC Pty Ltd more time to bring her general protections claim. She alleges she was dismissed in breach of the Fair Work Act after lodging a formal grievance against a vice president.
Late claims only get through if the Commission finds exceptional circumstances - something out of the ordinary, unusual or uncommon. It found them here. But the ruling deals only with the deadline. Whether she was dismissed at all is still very much in dispute.
A thank-you note and a handover offer
Her employment ended on April 10, 2026. She had 21 days to file, and that window closed at midnight on May 1. Her application arrived on June 5.
HSI objected on two fronts. The application was late, it said, and she was never dismissed in the first place.
According to HSI, she called its vice president of human resources on Teams on or around March 23 to say she had been offered a role much higher in stature, with a pay rise of around $20,000 to $30,000 a year. She resigned by email that day, nominating April 10 as her last day.
HSI said the email described another opportunity more closely aligned with her career aspirations. She thanked the business and offered to help with a smooth handover. According to HSI, the email said nothing about bullying, unsafe work, seizures or panic attacks.
HSI argued that someone who gives notice, works to a set end date and offers a handover is not someone left with no real choice but to resign.
Her side of the story
She tells it differently. She claims she lodged a formal grievance against the vice president after around 24 months of what the decision records as "intimidating, aggressive, and dismissive behavior" from him.
She says HSI "actively chose to protect" him, isolated the HR function and left her unprotected in a "hostile work environment". As her position became untenable and her symptoms worsened, she says, she was "forced to resign".
The vice president is not a party to the case, and none of these claims has been tested.
Up to nine episodes a day
Then there was her reason for the delay.
She told the Commission she had been living with a severe, undiagnosed neurological condition. For about 12 months before May 2026, she said, she was having episodes up to nine times a day: dissociation, facial flushing, nausea and an intense shooting sensation in her right hand, followed by confusion, headache and marked fatigue lasting one to two hours.
The Commission found those symptoms had been wrongly diagnosed as psychological. She had seen a mental health social worker twice in December 2025, and an antidepressant prescribed by her GP was dispensed on February 26, 2026.
On May 8 - a week after the deadline had passed - she had a generalised tonic-clonic seizure and was hospitalised. A CT scan found a lesion on her brain. She was referred to a neurologist and told not to drive until cleared. The episodes have since been identified as focal aware seizures.
A new job, and a call to the old one
HSI said her own conduct did not match the incapacity she was claiming.
On May 11, three days after she was hospitalised, HSI said she told its US-based vice president of human resources that she had started a new job and it was going well. She disclosed her seizure diagnosis and asked whether HSI would consider taking her back, citing its flexibility on remote work over her new employer's in-office expectations.
HSI also said that before filing, she sent detailed correspondence asserting legal claims, referring to the 21-day time limit, threatening Commission and Federal Court proceedings and making a quantified settlement demand.
That argument came up short on evidence. The Commission did not have enough information to show when the new job started or how often she was attending it. It was not given a copy of the settlement correspondence, or told when it was sent.
HSI did land one point. The Commission accepted there was no medical evidence expressly saying she was unable to file until June 5.
But that did not rule out exceptional circumstances. Following a 2025 appeal decision, the Commission said a worker relying on illness to explain a delay does not have to prove incapacity for the whole period.
It found it likely she had at least some periods of incapacity during the 21-day window, and noted it would be difficult to get medical evidence proving that when she was not properly diagnosed until after the window had closed. Given her condition, the delay did not appear unreasonable or excessive.
A mixed scorecard
Not every factor went her way. Her request for her job back came after the deadline, so even if it counted as disputing the dismissal, it was not made in time. That weighed against her.
HSI said recruitment for her replacement was well advanced. But she is seeking compensation, not her job back, and HSI appeared to have the records it needed to defend the claim. The Commission found no evidence HSI would be disadvantaged by the extension.
The strength of her case was "finely balanced". HSI had not responded to her claims about the vice president's conduct, or her claim that the company did not address her concerns. But it relied on her resignation correspondence to argue she left voluntarily for another job.
The Commission said that even if she could show the vice president treated her poorly and HSI did not address it, proving she was forced to resign may be difficult if the resignation letter suggests otherwise - "which appears to be the case", based on HSI's description. It could not conclude her claim had reasonable prospects of success, but said those questions could not be properly decided without evidence and a hearing.
In the end, her medical condition tipped the balance. The Commission pointed to debilitating symptoms she had told her employer about, and a condition misdiagnosed for many months and not correctly diagnosed until after the deadline. It extended the filing period to June 5.
The matter now goes to a conference, where the Commission will decide whether further hearings are needed on threshold questions before the claim itself is dealt with.
For HR teams, the case shows that symptoms an employee reports while still on the payroll can carry weight well after they leave - here, they helped a late claim clear the 21-day deadline.
The decision deals only with the extension of time. The Commission has not decided whether the HR manager was dismissed or whether HSI breached the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act, and her allegations about the vice president have not been tested.
