By: Rosemary Marando and Caitilin Watson

Roohizadegan v Technology One Ltd (No 6) [2025] FCA 1619

At a glance

• The Federal Court has overturned a previous $5.2M ruling, dismissing Mr Roohizadegan’s General Protections claim after a six‑year litigation battle.
• The Court found the dismissal was due to performance, not disability, alleged workplace rights, or incentive entitlements.
• The decision is expected to influence future General Protections claims, reducing speculative filings and resetting expectations on high‑value compensation.

Summary

On 18 December 2025, the Federal Court dismissed the General Protection claim by Mr Roohizadegan against TechnologyOne. Mr Roohizadegan was seeking $55M for his dismissal. He alleged the termination of his employment was because of the following:

• Mr Roohizadegan’s mental disability being severe stress, anxiety and depression and he was discriminated against because of his disability,
• he exercised a workplace right as he proposed to bring legal proceedings at a meeting with the employer, and/or
• he was entitled to receive an incentive payment under his contract of employment.

The case began in 2019 with a landmark finding against the employer for approximately $5.2M.¹ The appeal by the employer resulted in a re-trial being ordered. The outcome of the re-trial is that the initial decision was overturned and Mr Roohizadegan was unsuccessful in his application against the employer, despite 5 years of litigation and expert medical evidence. The pleadings included a list of alleged adverse actions against the employer which Mr Roohizadegan alleged occurred both whilst he was employed and due to the termination of his employment, as is common in General Protection claims. A misrepresentation claim was also advanced. Several points were abandoned at or before hearing.

Ultimately, Justice Mcelwaine found it was a sad case where an initially spectacular employee was dismissed for performance reasons, not because he exercised any workplace rights as alleged. The Judge commented that:

“Behnam [Mr Roohizadegan] lived for his work. It was his purpose in life, ultimately to the detriment of his family and his health. Each of the expert psychiatrists agreed during their joint evidence that Behnam suffers from obsessive compulsive personality traits. People with an obsessional personality will often use work as a diversion to suppress their symptoms. Over time, this is destructive. Ultimately, that is what I have concluded in this case.”

The employer discharged the reverse onus of proof in section 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) by leading evidence from the decision maker of the steps taken against Mr Roohizadegan in his employment and the reasons such steps were taken. The Judge accepted the decision maker’s evidence that the substantial and operative reason that the decision was made to terminate Mr Roohizadegan’s employment was not because he exercised any workplace right/s or any other proscribed reason under the FW Act, but because of his performance.

The Court will now hear submissions on costs, which are expected to be in the millions of dollars for both parties. The Court may be prepared to make adverse cost orders against Mr Roohizadegan. Generally, the Courts are not prepared to make costs orders under section s 570 of the FW Act, because most claims are not commenced vexatiously, without reasonable cause or found to have unreasonably caused costs to be incurred. The costs decision may break new ground.

Learnings

This case should have a chilling effect on claimants and claimant firms to reiterate the real risk and the evidence required to succeed in General Protections claims. It ought to discourage claimants from pursuing speculative claims.

This should put downward pressure on the high end quantum General Protection cases. Claimants alleging that their whole life is ruined due to termination of employment will be tested, particularly on any medical evidence. The Court will also consider the length of time the claimant would have remained employed by the employer but for the alleged adverse action and/or termination of employment.

Parties should consider the commerciality of claims and the proportionality of costs to the amount in dispute. In this matter, the parties litigated for 6 years, employed large legal teams including Senior Counsel and will have spent more on legal costs than the value of the dispute.

There is inherent risk in terminating the employment of employees who are unwell or injured. The Judge observed that Mr Roohizadegan would have been upset by the termination of his employment regardless of the manner in which the termination of employment was effected.

Employers should be mindful that decisions will be challenged. To prepare, they should document the reasons for decisions at the time (particularly termination of employment decisions) and ensure that the decision is not for a prohibited reason.

Mr Roohizadegan failed to establish the matters he relied on as objective facts and his version of events. Employees sometimes mischaracterise legitimate conduct of an employer, for example in providing feedback to staff. Contemporaneous evidence and following company policy and procedures will usually assist the employer to set out what occurred.

Trends and looking forward

The Fair Work Commission has seen an approximate 27% uplift in General Protection claims filed² since 2023.

At its heart, this claim covered issues commonly seen in General Protections claims. This included broad and numerous allegations, which were not pressed at hearing. The defence of the claim turned on the evidence of the decision maker. Mr Roohizadegan was convinced that his workplace rights must have been the real reason for the decision to end his employment, despite being told otherwise. Mr Roohizadegan had high expectations, which resulted in any potential resolution being more difficult. The unfavourable outcome for Mr Roohizadegan should put downward pressure on quantum expectations for claimants.

Mr Roohizadegan’s claim was primarily for future economic loss. There has been a trend for claimants to assert that adverse action ruined their ability to work in future in the past few years since the decision in Leggett v Hawkesbury Race Club Limited (No 4) [2022] FCA 622. Many claimants do not have the basis or supporting evidence to prove a very large future economic loss in the order of millions of dollars.

General Protections claims tend to expand if they cannot be resolved at the Fair Work Commission and are commenced in the Federal Court of Australia.

Claimant expectations for quantum usually increase if claims cannot be resolved at the Fair Work Commission and are commenced in the Federal Court of Australia, regardless of whether they are substantiated or not.

Key Contacts & Updates

For insights or questions about this article, please reach out to our authors Rosemary Marando and Caitilin Watson.

To receive future updates around Workplace and Safety, please complete the form below.