Fair Work dissects show-cause steps that pushed diversity specialist to resign
A diversity specialist who resigned after a show-cause meeting has been found to have been forced to quit, the Fair Work Commission has ruled.
On 25 November 2025, Deputy President Wright of the Fair Work Commission found that Inclusion & Diversity Specialist Leigh Hoang was “dismissed” within the meaning of the Fair Work Act, even though she resigned from Endeavour Energy Network Management Pty Ltd Trading as Endeavour Energy.
Hoang applied under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging her dismissal contravened the general protections provisions. Endeavour objected at the threshold, arguing there was no dismissal because she had resigned. The Commission first had to decide that jurisdictional issue before it could deal with the substance of the claim.
Hoang was employed from 18 March 2024 to 25 March 2025 as an Inclusion & Diversity Specialist in the Organisational Development team within the People & Culture division. She reported to Organisation Development and Learning and Inclusion and Diversity Manager, Joanne McManus. Her responsibilities included two NAIDOC Week events on 10–11 July 2024, Family Friendly Workplace accreditation in August 2024, the Innovate Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) in November 2024, the Innovate RAP launch event on 22 November 2024, a Diwali event on 27 November 2024, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency Gender Pay Gap Employer Statement in March 2025, and the International Women’s Day event on 7 March 2025.
From early in her employment, Hoang said there were inconsistencies between how the role was presented and how it operated, including changes to her position title and reporting line. She gave evidence about concerns over the handling of feedback from a Muslim employee regarding a comment at an International Women’s Day event, who should host NAIDOC Week events, delays in progressing the RAP vision statement, and limited access to People & Culture process data she sought for DEI program design.
On 10 September 2024, one week before the scheduled end of her six‑month probation, Hoang attended a meeting with McManus and Manager, People Partnering, Rebecca Dobe. High Voltage Operator and RAP Lead Mark Barton attended as her support person. Her probation was extended by one month and she was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan, which stated that failure to meet performance targets could result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Hoang passed the PIP and probation on 18 October 2024.
Endeavour later pointed to ongoing performance concerns, including relationship-building and visibility across the business, and to issues with a missed external deadline for publishing the WGEA Gender Pay Gap Statement and the pace of work on the 2025 International Women’s Day event. There was, however, no written record before the Commission of any further formal performance management process between the end of the PIP and February 2025.
The key turning point came on 19 March 2025. Hoang attended a meeting at Endeavour’s Parramatta office with McManus, Head of People & Culture Emma Murison, and Dobe. Barton joined via Microsoft Teams from Hoxton Park. At that meeting, Murison read a Notice to Show Cause letter that set out performance concerns, stated that Endeavour was proposing to terminate Hoang’s employment, and invited a written response by close of business on 25 March 2025. Hoang said she was shocked by the meeting and the contents of the letter.
Hoang then took a week off work to prepare her response. On 25 March 2025, she submitted a detailed written reply and resigned effective immediately. In that response, she stated that she did not wish to resign but felt the situation had become untenable and that she needed to leave to protect her dignity, mental health and wellbeing. She also said she did not have alternative employment secured at the time.
Endeavour maintained this was a voluntary resignation. The Commission disagreed. Deputy President Wright found there was insufficient evidence that Endeavour acted with the specific intention of bringing Hoang’s employment to an end, but held that termination of her employment was the probable result of the employer’s conduct, such that she had no effective or real choice but to resign.
The Commission highlighted four key elements: Endeavour did not communicate its alleged ongoing performance concerns between 18 October 2024 and 18 February 2025; it did not give Hoang an opportunity to respond to concerns about the WGEA statement and the International Women’s Day event before making adverse findings; the show-cause letter described termination as the disciplinary outcome under consideration, without referring to other options; and the show-cause meeting proceeded while Barton could only attend remotely, limiting his ability to support Hoang in person.
On that basis, the Commission held that Hoang was forced to resign within section 386(1)(b) and therefore had been dismissed for the purposes of section 365. Endeavour’s jurisdictional objection was dismissed, and the matter will now be listed for conference so the Commission can deal with the dispute under section 368.
Consider this a reminder that every performance and show-cause process must be documented, genuinely open to outcomes other than termination, and structured so that support persons can meaningfully participate.
