Two months of requests. Medical reports. Ergonomic checklists. Then a one-line direction from Elgas
A casual worker asked to work from home before surgery. Two months later, she lost her assignment.
The Federal Court of Australia has granted a worker leave to pursue a disability discrimination claim against her labour hire employer, finding there are unresolved questions about the company's role in denying her requests to work from home while she prepared for and recovered from abdominal surgery.
The decision, handed down on October 21, 2026, centres on a triangular employment arrangement that will look familiar to many HR teams: the worker was employed as a casual by Zoom Recruitment Pty Ltd but assigned to Elgas Limited to perform accounts receivable work at its Canning Vale site in Western Australia.
She had been in the role since 2023. As a casual, she had no paid sick leave - meaning if she could not work, she had no income.
The request
When surgery loomed in early March 2025, the worker asked both Elgas and Zoom if she could work from home temporarily. Elgas told her to take it up with Zoom. Zoom asked for a formal fitness-for-work assessment and said it had 21 days to review the request.
What followed, according to the judgment, was a trail of emails in which the worker struggled to get timely answers or clear guidance. Zoom requested medical information, then more medical information, then an ergonomic assessment. The worker provided everything asked of her.
Meanwhile, a director of Linde for Western Australia - an entity the judgment describes as appearing to be related to the Elgas parent group - told the worker by phone that working from home was "not something we want to do," and followed up in writing: "My preference is that you rest until you can get back to the office."
The worker pointed out that other employees in office roles at Elgas - including a team leader - had been permitted to work from home, and asked why the same arrangement had not been extended to her. She noted that the infrastructure for remote work appeared to exist.
The termination
On May 8, 2025 - roughly two months after her initial request - Zoom emailed the worker a one-line direction: Elgas had directed that she was not to return to the Canning Vale site. The assignment was over.
Zoom told her she remained on its books for future placements. As of the September 2026 hearing, no alternative work had been offered.
The complaint and the leave decision
The worker complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against both Elgas and Zoom, alleging disability discrimination. The AHRC terminated both complaints - the Zoom complaint on the basis it was "lacking in substance or misconceived," and the Elgas complaint because conciliation had no prospect of success.
Under the legislation, the worker could take Elgas to the Federal Court without needing permission. But because the AHRC had found the Zoom complaint lacking in substance, she needed the court's leave to bring that claim.
Zoom's position was straightforward: it had no control over the terms of the assignment, Elgas called the shots on whether the role was performed on-site, and Zoom could not have made any adjustments even if it wanted to. It argued the AHRC's decision was "undoubtedly correct."
The court disagreed.
Applying the test from James v WorkPower Inc - where a claim must be reasonably arguable rather than fanciful, without the court needing to resolve the merits - the judge found the worker had cleared that bar.
What tipped it
Several factual threads caught the court's attention. Zoom had conducted a range of medical and ergonomic assessments that contemplated the worker might work from home - which sat awkwardly with the position that Elgas had a firm requirement for the role to be performed on-site. If working on-site was merely Elgas's preference rather than a genuine inherent requirement of the role, the court noted, there may have been room for a different outcome.
The contractual arrangements also gave the court pause. Zoom had argued it was effectively distanced from any control over the worker, but the Labour Hire Agreement stated that the service provider "retains control" of labour hire personnel. The worker's employment agreement referenced directions from both Zoom and Elgas. And Zoom carried joint work health and safety obligations.
Then there were the communications the worker never saw. It was apparent from the evidence that Elgas and Zoom had been communicating separately about her situation, but those exchanges were not before the court. The judgment noted this had limited the worker's capacity to deal with some matters.
The court also weighed resources. Since the claim against Elgas would proceed to trial regardless, refusing leave against Zoom would not avoid its involvement - even as a witness. The factual and legal issues across both claims were intertwined.
Leave was granted. The matter has been referred to mediation.
For HR teams managing labour hire arrangements, the decision is a practical reminder that a labour hire provider cannot necessarily wash its hands of a discrimination claim by pointing to the host employer. Where communications are intertwined, obligations overlap, and a worker's requests are bouncing between two parties, the question of who bears responsibility may not be as tidy as the contracts suggest.
