Even winning doesn't erase the shadow of a 48-hour gap between disclosure and dismissal
Two days after receiving a doctor's letter about an employee's injuries, the employer terminated his position. Even a court that dismissed the worker's claim couldn't ignore that timing.
Glenn Ashley's case, decided February 9, 2026, by Victoria's County Court, demonstrates how suspicious timing can haunt employers long after they've been vindicated on the merits.
Ashley worked as a business development manager for Shine On, a lighting company, when he collided with an excavator bucket on the Geelong Ring Road on March 18, 2022. He returned to work the following Monday and continued full-time for the next 15 months, seeing physiotherapists and psychologists while managing back, neck, shoulder and knee pain.
His employer, Stefan Manolidis, issued a performance warning in May 2023 citing missed targets and poor client follow-up. On June 17, 2023, Ashley's doctor sent a letter detailing work restrictions due to his injuries. The redundancy letter arrived June 19.
Ashley argued his dismissal stemmed from the injuries. Manolidis insisted business pressures drove the decision. The company had suffered a significant downturn due to legislative changes affecting government lighting schemes. Twelve employees lost their jobs simultaneously. The business later collapsed into liquidation with debts including approximately $5.2 million to Westpac Bank.
The court never ruled on the redundancy's lawfulness because Ashley's case hinged on whether his injuries qualified as serious under transport accident legislation. He needed to prove either serious long-term physical impairment or severe psychiatric injury to pursue damages.
Surveillance footage became pivotal. Investigators recorded 95 hours across fourteen days between February 2024 and April 2025, capturing Ashley walking for 80 minutes straight, bending and kneeling in supermarket aisles, and lifting his young son into shopping trolleys. He had told doctors these activities caused significant difficulty.
Judge Gostencnik found Ashley "tends to overstate the severity and persistence of his post-accident symptoms and minimise his pre-existing conditions." Medical records revealed prior knee surgery in 2002, ongoing elbow and shoulder problems, and mental health treatment dating to 2017.
Weighing expert medical opinions and surveillance evidence, the judge concluded that Ashley's injuries were primarily soft-tissue aggravations with consequences that "were modest and largely temporary." His psychiatric conditions, though ongoing, fell short of the severe threshold required.
Yet the judge noted something telling: there was no evidence performance problems existed before the accident. The May 2023 warning referenced ongoing performance issues over the past 12 months, a period entirely after the collision.
The court acknowledged it could not determine whether Ashley's injuries resulting from the transport accident played a role in the decision to dismiss him on redundancy grounds.
Ashley's claim failed, but the shadow of doubt persisted. Even with twelve simultaneous redundancies and eventual company liquidation supporting the business rationale, that 48-hour gap between medical disclosure and termination raised questions that survived the litigation.
For HR professionals, the message cuts deeper than legal compliance. Document performance issues early and contemporaneously. When redundancy becomes unavoidable, scrutinize the timeline. Legitimate business decisions need more than sound reasons. They need timing that withstands scrutiny.
Sometimes being right isn't enough when the optics tell a different story.
