Rumble v The Partnership Trading as HWL Ebsworth Lawyers [2020] FCAFC 37

Rumble v The Partnership Trading as HWL Ebsworth Lawyers [2020] FCAFC 37

The appeal failed because the primary judge was required to identify the decision-maker's actual substantial and operative reasons for terminating the appellant's employment and found, on unchallenged facts, that those reasons were breach of the media policy, insubordination, protection of the firm's business interests and perceived lack of fee generation, not the appellant's holding or expression of political opinion. The fact that the media policy breach was connected with expression of political opinion did not of itself make political opinion a substantial and operative reason for the dismissal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Appeal Concerning Adverse Action and Alleged Discrimination Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Appeal From Rumble V the Partnership Trading as HWL Ebsworth Lawyers [2019] FCA 1409
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adverse Action' 'political Opinion' 'dismissal' 'fair Work Act 2009 (cth) S 351(1)' 'employer Media Policy' 'reasons for Adverse Action']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law' 'discrimination Law'] ['adverse Action' 'political Opinion' 'dismissal' 'fair Work Act 2009 (cth) S 351(1)' 'employer Media Policy' 'reasons for Adverse Action']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law Appeal Concerning Adverse Action and Alleged Discrimination Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Appeal From Rumble V the Partnership Trading as HWL Ebsworth Lawyers [2019] FCA 1409

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent contravened s 351(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by dismissing the appellant after he repeatedly breached the firm's media policy by criticising government clients in the media." "Whether dismissal for breach of a media policy that prevented criticism of clients in the media was necessarily dismissal because of the appellant's political opinion." "Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the appellant's political opinion was not a substantial and operative factor in the managing partner's decision to terminate his employment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge was required to identify the decision-maker's actual substantial and operative reasons for terminating the appellant's employment and found, on unchallenged facts, that those reasons were breach of the media policy, insubordination, protection of the firm's business interests and perceived lack of fee generation, not the appellant's holding or expression of political opinion. The fact that the media policy breach was connected with expression of political opinion did not of itself make political opinion a substantial and operative reason for the dismissal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.']