Punctuality deemed inherent requirement even when ADHD affects time management
A hospitality manager with ADHD resigned after her employer refused to budge on punctuality requirements, but a tribunal ruled she wasn't forced out.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed Carly Peat's constructive dismissal claim on January 20, 2026, finding that Open Door Pub Co. Pty Limited and Clare Lodge, Venue Manager, had done enough to accommodate her disability and that she left of her own accord.
The case offers a window into how far employers must go when workplace accommodations clash with non-negotiable job requirements.
Peat joined the pub company as a Bar Supervisor on January 16, 2024, without disclosing her ADHD. She performed well enough to land a promotion to Functions and Events Manager by April 2025. That's when things started to unravel.
The step up in responsibility triggered a cascade of problems. The increased stress intensified her ADHD symptoms, making her chronically late and forcing her to stay after hours just to finish basic administrative work. If Peat was rostered to open the venue, there was a real chance it wouldn't happen on time.
She disclosed her diagnosis on June 23, 2025. The company offered access to their Employee Assistance Program and gave her time off. When she arrived late again on July 9, 2025, she admitted she still hadn't contacted the EAP. She finally went on July 11, 2025.
By August 25, 2025, frustrated with her continuing struggles, Peat filed a formal disability discrimination complaint. The company investigated and engaged in weeks of back-and-forth correspondence about possible solutions.
On September 17, 2025, management sent what would become the breaking point. The email acknowledged their efforts to accommodate her but drew a firm line: "At the end of the day, we need you to show up to work on time - this is an inherent requirement of your role. We have tried to collaboratively make accommodations with you and it remains our priority to support you throughout your employment. Ultimately though, the position that you are required to attend work on time remains unchanged as it is essential to the effective operation of the business."
Peat resigned that same day. She wrote: "I cannot continue to work for a company that refuses to acknowledge the lack of meaningful support provided when I disclosed my disability and requested assistance. I entered this process in good faith, seeking reasonable adjustments, but the handling of my disclosure and subsequent treatment has left me with no confidence in the company's commitment to genuine inclusion or support."
What the company had also offered, and what became significant in the tribunal's decision, was a transfer to a different venue at her previous supervisory level. Peat turned it down, unwilling to give up the promotion she had earned.
Commissioner Riordan examined whether the employer's conduct left Peat with no real choice but to quit. The answer was no.
The decision noted that the company's correspondence before Peat resigned made clear that supporting her remained a priority. Offering her the chance to return to a role she had excelled in previously demonstrated genuine attempts to find a workable solution.
The commissioner found that one of the job's core requirements was showing up on time to open the venue. Peat's inability to meet this standard, combined with her struggle to complete administrative tasks during normal hours, led to the conclusion that she resigned of her own free will because she simply could not satisfactorily undertake the role.
For HR teams navigating disability accommodations, the case underscores an uncomfortable reality: good faith efforts matter, but they don't eliminate the right to enforce essential job functions. Documentation of support measures, genuine investigation of complaints, and offers of alternative positions all worked in the employer's favor when the claim reached tribunal.
The message is clear. Accommodations have boundaries, especially when business operations depend on specific performance standards that cannot be modified without fundamental disruption.
