A missed deadline and a too-broad complaint stopped most of the case before the merits
Coles has halted most of a former worker's discrimination and unfair-treatment case - not by disproving it, but on the rules he had to follow first.
In a judgment handed down on June 1, 2026, the Federal Court of Australia dealt with claims brought by Sahil Verma, a casual trolley collector at Coles from November 2021 until his dismissal on February 9, 2024. Mr Verma argued the dismissal breached the Fair Work Act and was both racial and disability discrimination. The judgment notes he has a schizoaffective disorder.
At the heart of the case was an alleged incident on January 12, 2024. Mr Verma says he fell ill during a shift and rested in the break area, only to be photographed on the floor by a co-worker, who reported him as "sleeping on duty." Mr Verma further alleges that later that day, after he raised a safety rule, the co-worker leaned in and made a racial threat against him. He says that co-worker was dismissed roughly three months later after abusing another colleague. The court did not test or decide any of this. The ruling turned on process.
And process is where the case unravelled.
The Fair Work claims went first. Mr Verma lodged his unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission after the 21-day deadline. The Commission refused more time, and its Full Bench refused permission to appeal. A general protections claim in court also needs a certificate from the Commission under s 368(3)(a) - and Mr Verma never obtained one. Justice Sarah Derrington held that the court had no jurisdiction without it. Two things are required, she said: the certificate and a filing within 14 days. He had neither.
His argument that Coles misled him by staying silent on the deadline went nowhere. An employer has no duty to flag the time limit, the court found, and cannot reset the clock - the 21 days runs from the dismissal date.
Then the discrimination claims. This is the part worth a second read. Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, a discrimination claim brought in the Federal Court must match, in substance, the complaint first made to the Commission. Mr Verma's Commission complaint, as the judgment describes it, covered a single incident of racial discrimination and racial hatred. His court claims tried to add new territory - discrimination in rostering and shift allocation, plus disability discrimination. Justice Derrington pointed out the complaint did not even allege Coles knew he had a disability. Those added claims sat outside the court's reach and were dismissed.
The negligence claim met a third, separate fate. Mr Verma alleged Coles caused him psychiatric injury, but in Queensland a worker usually needs a notice of assessment under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act before suing for damages. He did not have one. Rather than dismiss the claim outright, the court struck it out as premature - leaving him free to pursue the compensation process properly and return through the right forum.
For HR leaders, the takeaway is blunt: the gateways can matter as much as the merits. Filing deadlines, the Commission certificate, and the rule that a court discrimination claim cannot grow beyond the original Human Rights Commission complaint each did decisive work here. Clean dismissal documentation, careful response forms, and consistent complaint-handling are what give an employer this kind of footing. And note the line the court drew: pointing a former worker to the right forum, as Coles did, is not the same as giving them advice.
The allegations about the co-worker's conduct and the discrimination claims have not been tested in court. This was an interlocutory ruling on jurisdiction and prospects - no court has ruled on whether the alleged conduct happened. Costs were reserved.
