Mum claims workplace fired her over carer responsibilities, pregnancy

The Federal Court has dismissed a worker’s discrimination claim brought by a mother who raised eyebrows when she brought her daughter into work.

Axel Taulagon commenced employment at Allight, a mobile lighting and power solutions company, as a contracts officer on 3 February 2022 and was terminated on 19 May 2023.

When Talaugon commenced in her role with Allight, she had a six-year-old daughter and was pregnant with her second child.

School holidays and pupil-free days

Federal Court Judge Michael Feutrill found that Talaugon had occasionally not attended work in the office during the first three months of her employment, as required under her employment contract.

At her three-month probation review, her punctuality and non-attendance were discussed with a manager and an informal flexible working arrangement was put in place to assist Talaugon with her office attendance.

Due to her saying she would not come into the office at the last minute due to appointments on multiple occasions, her manager decided to formalise a flexible working arrangement for Talaugon in September 2022.

The court found: “Talaugon sent a proposal that would have her work every morning in the office from 9:30am to 2pm (or 1pm on Wednesday) and from home in the afternoons up to 6:30pm to make up the required 7.6 hours. Ms Talaugon also proposed that she work from home from 9am to 5pm on school holidays and pupil-free days.”

On Thursday, 20 December 2022, Talaugon began working from home without prior approval.

Talaugon told her employer she was working at home with her daughter as the school holidays had already started.

Judge Feutrill received evidence from Allight that a manager complained “it was the second time in a week that Ms Talaugon had not informed him of her whereabouts and that he had understood that she ‘would be working in the office on Tuesdays and Thursdays’”.

‘Mum, I’m scared’

Talaugon brought her daughter to work on 5 April 2023 and attended a production meeting with her, without the permission of any of the managers.

Talaugon had not signed her daughter into the facility as a visitor.

Her manager informed her that the fact that she could not obtain care for her daughter “did not mean she could bring her child to work”.

“If Ms Talaugon was sick, she could take sick leave; if her daughter was sick, Ms Talaugon could take carer’s leave, and if they were both well, then Ms Talaugon could take annual leave,” the manager said.

The court heard that following this, Talaugon “became emotional, spoke loudly, and abruptly left the room in which the meeting was being held”.

Her manager submitted to the court that during the incident, Talaugon slammed her hand on the desk and yelled at her manager loudly.

This prompted her daughter to say at one point: “Mum, I’m scared.”

‘Could not log in to work’

From around 2023, Allight management expressed concern about Talaugon’s performance, including management not knowing when Talaugon was working and concern that she was “not sticking to the routine that she had suggested”.

In an email to Talaugon, her manager said: “Spending eight weeks of school holidays working from home makes it difficult for planned ‘Tool Box’ meetings and a bit of face-to-face, one-on-one time.”

In addition, Allight management concluded that Talaugon provided a lack of notice on leave requests, refused to work at any time in the office during school holidays, and had IT issues at home – meaning that she could not log in to work.

Termination

On 26 May 2023, Talaugon attended a meeting with her managers, where she was provided a letter terminating her employment.

The letter indicated that her employer determined that Talaugon failed to meet her obligations under her contract of employment and in the terms of the workplace’s code of conduct and ethics.

As a result, Talaugon was terminated effective immediately.

Despite Talaugon claiming that the termination constituted discrimination against her, the court concluded that this claim was unfounded.

“There is nothing in that context or circumstances to suggest that termination was because Ms Talaugon had carer responsibilities and was pregnant,” the court said.

Judge Feutrill found that Talaugon’s employment was terminated as a result of her conduct, including “behaving as if she no longer considered herself bound by her contract of employment”.

The court dismissed Talaugon’s application and upheld her dismissal, finding that it was unnecessary to consider whether Talaugon suffered any loss or damage or was entitled to any other relief in the proceeding.

The case citation: Talaugon v Allight Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1672.