Federal judge draws a hard line on fitness for core job duties
An employee's heart attack, safety complaints and resignation have been ruled insufficient to establish breaches of workplace laws, in a decision with clear implications for HR.
On February 19, 2026, Judge Doust of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) refused former fitter/technician Sam Iftakher permission to rely on a new version of his claim against Aust Lift Pty Ltd. The court found that his Amended Concise Statement of Claim did not set out a reasonably arguable breach of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Iftakher suffered a heart attack on May 1, 2024 and did not return to work after that date. He said he could no longer safely perform the heavy physical work required of his role, was later certified permanently unfit for those duties, and felt he had effectively been forced to resign. In his amended pleading, he alleged "constructive termination" and argued that Aust Lift failed to make reasonable adjustments or provide a safe working environment.
He also alleged that poor workshop ventilation exposed him to welding fumes, metal dust and spray‑paint fumes, which he said caused his heart attack. He claimed that his heart attack and arthritis – the latter diagnosed after he left work – were "protected attributes" within the meaning of section 351(1) of the Fair Work Act, and that he had repeatedly raised safety concerns and requested improved ventilation.
In an earlier judgment in the same proceeding, the court had already found that allegations of breaches of council planning regulations, occupational health and safety laws and motor vehicle repair licensing requirements were not within the court's jurisdiction, and that the applicant did not have standing to bring a claim under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Despite that, the judge had left open the possibility that a reasonably arguable Fair Work claim might still be articulated.
The latest reasons close that door.
A central issue was the "inherent requirements" of the role. Even if the circumstances could be characterised as a dismissal, the court held that the protection in section 351 does not apply where action is taken because an employee can no longer perform the inherent requirements of the particular position. As Judge Doust put it: "If the applicant was dismissed because his disability meant that he could no longer perform the inherent requirements of his position, there could be no contravention of s 351 of the FW Act."
The court also rejected the argument that the workplace conditions themselves amounted to adverse action taken because of disability or because Iftakher exercised a workplace right by complaining. A key factual admission undermined this theory: according to the applicant, the workshop conditions were the same on his first day of work as on his last. The judgment noted that the workplace conditions "were unsafe and remained so and did not change with the revelation of his physical disabilities, nor the making of complaints." In other words, the employer had not altered the conditions in response to any disability or complaint, making it impossible to show the required "because of" link under sections 340 or 351.
Timing was equally important. The court found a "further fundamental flaw" in the argument that Aust Lift acted because of disability, because the relevant physical conditions did not exist, or were not diagnosed, until after Iftakher left the workplace. His arthritis was diagnosed only after he went off work following the heart attack, and he did not return after May 1, 2024. While he said he had reported chest pains to his supervisor, the judge noted that such pains are not, in themselves, a physical disability.
Judge Doust concluded that the amended pleading did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action under the Fair Work Act and declined to grant leave to file it. The judgment records that Iftakher has now advanced three different forms of pleading – a Statement of Claim, a Concise Statement of Claim and the Amended Concise Statement of Claim – and that none has articulated a cause of action within the court's jurisdiction with reasonable prospects of success.
The matter will be listed again so the court can hear from the parties on what orders should follow these reasons, including whether the originating application should be dismissed.
For senior HR and people leaders, the decision underscores three themes: managing workers who are permanently unfit for core job requirements within the "inherent requirements" framework; recognising that long‑standing workplace conditions, without a change tied to a protected reason, are unlikely to qualify as unlawful adverse action; and understanding that diagnoses made only after an employee has stopped work rarely support claims that earlier decisions were made because of those conditions.
