Despite suspicious timing, employer's performance concerns held up in court
A pregnant contracts officer with flexible work approved was terminated two months later, but her discrimination claim failed in Federal Court.
Axel Talaugon worked for Allight Pty Ltd, a Western Australian manufacturer of mobile lighting and power solutions, caring for her six-year-old daughter while her husband worked fly-in-fly-out. After months of back-and-forth negotiations, the company formally approved her flexible working arrangement in March 2023. By May, she was out of a job.
In a decision handed down on December 23, 2025, Justice Feutrill dismissed Talaugon's claims that Allight terminated her employment because of her pregnancy and caring responsibilities, finding instead that the company acted on legitimate performance and conduct concerns.
The timeline was fraught. Talaugon joined Allight in February 2022 with an informal work-from-home arrangement. When her new manager Chris Dunn took over in December 2022, he raised concerns about communication gaps and unexplained absences. By early 2023, Talaugon was pregnant and formally requesting flexible work under the Fair Work Act's provisions.
After Allight approved her arrangement on March 21, 2023, allowing her to work from home Mondays and Tuesdays and attend the office Wednesday through Friday mornings, things quickly deteriorated. On April 5, Talaugon brought her daughter to work without permission and took her into the production facility, a hazardous area with welding equipment and heavy machinery where visitors required safety inductions and protective equipment.
When confronted by people and culture advisor Alexandra Greensill and Dunn, Talaugon became emotional and vocal. According to the court's findings, she raised her voice to the point of yelling, talked over Greensill, and abruptly left. Her daughter reportedly said "Mum I'm scared" during the exchange.
The company scheduled performance meetings to address communication issues and unauthorised departures from agreed working hours. Talaugon declined to attend multiple rescheduled meetings, saying she needed to consult her lawyer first. In emails, she accused the company of harassment and discrimination, threatening to escalate to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
After Talaugon refused on May 5, 2023 to attend a performance meeting scheduled for May 9, Allight issued a show cause notice. At that meeting on May 19, Talaugon and her husband raised various concerns but provided no explanation for her refusal to attend previous meetings. Allight's general manager of operations, product and service, Mr Ahmad, made the decision to terminate based on her repeated failure to comply with lawful directions and inappropriate workplace behaviour.
The court examined whether Ahmad's decision was genuinely about conduct or secretly motivated by Talaugon's pregnancy and caring duties. Under the Fair Work Act's reverse onus provisions, Allight had to prove discrimination wasn't a factor.
Justice Feutrill found the company succeeded. Ahmad's testimony that Talaugon's "repeated failure to engage with routine processes like the performance improvement plan indicated to him that she did not want to work at Allight" was accepted as truthful. The court noted that questioning how Talaugon would perform work while caring for her daughter wasn't discriminatory but legitimate inquiry into a flexible working arrangement.
Critically, the performance concerns predated knowledge of her pregnancy, with her first manager noting attendance issues in May 2022. The court found that Allight responded to these with "what should have been routine discussions became incredibly stressful for those involved, particularly Alex and Chris."
Talaugon's claims regarding refused carer's leave also failed. She had requested leave to care for a friend and couldn't find childcare, neither of which qualified under National Employment Standards.
For HR leaders, the case demonstrates that approving flexible work doesn't insulate employers from managing performance, but documentation matters enormously when facing reverse onus scrutiny in Federal Court. Allight's contemporaneous emails, meeting notes, and clear articulation of concerns proved decisive.
