The legality of the Married at First Sight dismissals

In light of the employment impacts on contestants after their conduct aired on Married at First Sight (MAFS), one lawyer emphasised the need for employers to have a solid reason for dismissal.

Employment issues surfaced in this year’s season of reality TV show Married at First Sight (MAFS), with rumours emerging that contestants Rebecca Zacharia and Gia Fleur had lost their jobs during airing.

“For disciplinary action to be appropriately tak­en, particularly termination of employment, the relevant online or media conduct must have some genuine connection to the employment relationship or the interests of the employer, for example, by damaging the employer’s reputation, brand or the workplace environment,” Michael Byrnes, employment lawyer at Swaab, told HR Leader.

“This connection might also arise if the conduct on the program is inherently incompatible with the values or stated purpose of the organisation (for example, if the employee is working for an anti-bullying organisation but engaged in bullying during the program).”

In April, following her reported dismissal as a disability support worker, Fleur announced on Instagram that she signed with celebrity agent Max Markson (ex-publicist for Kim Kardashian).

One week after the show’s third dinner party, Zacharia was dismissed by her employer for not fitting in and was paid out her entitlements, she alleged in a 9 April podcast episode of It’s A Lot with Abbie Chatfield.

On the podcast, Zacharia said that before the show aired, she had quit her role as an account manager and commenced employment in a sales role with a manufacturing company in Adelaide.

An insider alleged to Women’s Day: “They just told [Zacharia] that they couldn’t have her there. They didn’t want her to work there any longer, and it was due to what was happening on MAFS and her behaviour.”

The insider added that Zacharia was on probation at the time.

Byrnes said in a 2025 Swaab article that misconduct on TV can lead to ramifications if it brings public criticism due to being discriminatory, highly offensive, abusive or violent, or of an unwelcome sexual nature, or if the employee fails to warn the employer of the possibility of adverse publicity.

He added that in the case of an employee’s conduct on social media, similar principles apply to out-of-hours conduct by the employee.

Citing Australian Industrial Relations Commission decision of Rose v Tel­stra Corporation [1998] AIRC 1592, Byrnes noted that conduct must be proved to be likely to cause serious damage to the employment relationship, damage the employer’s interests, and conduct that is incompatible with the employee’s duty as an employee.

For termination to be valid, the conduct must be serious enough, connected to employment, and proportionate to the damage done to the employer or the employment relationship, Byrnes told HR Leader.

Further, he emphasised that the employee must be allowed to address their conduct and contextualise it.

“Employers need to examine the conduct objectively and be careful not to play moral guardian or engage in a knee-jerk reaction to any adverse publicity,” Byrnes added.

“Mere inconvenience or embarrassment to the employer will not be enough. The conduct engaged in will need to be serious with demonstrable adverse impact on the employer.”

In a similar case, HR Leader previously reported on an unfair dismissal case in which two employees won compensation despite being accused of engaging in a toxic group chat.