Worker disclosed family violence to manager then got fired weeks later

An employee disclosed domestic violence to his manager. Less than a month later, he was dismissed. The CEO claims he never knew.

Clayton Hammock needed to tell someone what was happening at home. On October 13, 2025, the Events Team Leader at the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch sent an email to his manager, Sian Reeder.

"I wanted to let you know that I'm currently dealing with a very serious and distressing situation at home," he wrote. "I'm taking today to attend to important safety matters, including learning more about the process of obtaining a Family Violence Order..."

Hammock took two days off, then came back to work. Less than a month later, on November 6, 2025, Associate Professor Neil Hewson terminated his employment during probation.

The reason given was performance. The employer said customers had complained about Hammock's work. Hammock said he had received positive feedback too.

Here is where it gets tricky for HR. Hammock filed a claim with the Fair Work Commission arguing his dismissal broke the law because it happened so soon after he disclosed he was experiencing family violence and might need leave. The problem was his application arrived one day late.

At a hearing on January 14, 2026, Commissioner Perica heard Hammock's reasons for the delay. He had been finding new housing after leaving the home he shared with his partner. He was job hunting after losing his income. He was dealing with health issues that emerged during this period.

The commissioner was unmoved. "The reasons for the delay articulated by Mr. Hammock, either individually or collectively, do not provide sufficient reason for the delay," the decision said. The case was dismissed.

That means the central question was never tested: did the disclosure about domestic violence play any role in the dismissal decision?

The employer's position was clear. Associate Professor Hewson, who made the call to terminate, did not know about the domestic violence situation until December 17, 2025, more than a month after the dismissal. The disclosure had gone to Reeder, not to him.

Hammock pushed back with an argument about "corporate knowledge." The organisation knew through Reeder, he said. Whether the CEO personally knew should not matter.

Commissioner Perica acknowledged the claim had potential: "However, it is possible the evidence may support an argument that, in so far as Ms. Reeder was involved in the decision to terminate Mr. Hammock, that decision may have included a prohibited reason."

But working out the truth would require a full hearing to examine the facts of the decision-making process. That hearing will not happen now.

For HR professionals, the unanswered question lingers. When someone discloses family violence to their line manager, what happens to that information? If it never reaches the person making termination decisions, does that create legal protection or legal exposure?

The case also shows how unforgiving the system can be around deadlines. General protections claims must be filed within 21 days of dismissal. Even one day over that limit can be fatal to a case, regardless of how sympathetic the circumstances.

Hammock's domestic violence, his housing crisis, his job search and his health issues were not enough to buy him 24 more hours.