Relationship with convicted murderer sparks unfair dismissal showdown

Keli Lane, a woman convicted of murdering her newborn baby, Tegan, has made headlines by standing by her partner in an unfair dismissal case that has tested how far employers can reach into staff’s private lives.

Sixteen years into her prison sentence, Lane was granted day release from NSW’s Silverwater Correctional Complex to support partner Patrick Cogan at the Fair Work Commission as he fought St Pius X College’s decision to terminate his employment late last October.

Lane and Cogan began their relationship in 2008, two years before she was convicted of the 1996 murder of her baby, Tegan.

Employment lawyer Michael Gillis, whose firm Gillis Delaney Lawyers is representing Cogan, said Cogan “very much appreciated” Lane being there to support him at the hearing, “especially in circumstances where it seems that Pat’s involvement with Keli was part of a cause as to why he lost his job”.

Gillis told Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader that Cogan was unfairly terminated for a failure to follow lawful and reasonable directions surrounding his support and advocacy of Lane, particularly given the “No Body, No Parole” laws that saw her parole application declined in 2024.

“After 27 years of loyal and faithful service to St Pius X College, the students, parents and staff, he has lost his job,” Gillis said.

“I’ve never had a case where an employer has adversely impacted an employee’s ongoing employment because of their relationship with someone [who] has been convicted of a criminal offence.

“It can’t have anything to do with the contract of employment and his obligations to perform his duties, which he was doing and [doing] without complaint at all by the school.”

At the centre of the unfair dismissal case was Cogan’s use of his school email to communicate with various people, including politicians, lawyers who were assisting with the consequences of the “No Body, No Parole” legislation, and Lane via Correction Services.

Gillis stressed there was an internet use policy at St Pius that allowed staff to use their school email accounts for personal purposes.

In early May 2025, Cogan informed St Pius that he received an email from 60 Minutes about a potential article on Lane, but that he had not given an interview or statement, and he had no intention of doing so. He also promised to keep the school informed if he changed his mind.

His lawyer said there was no requirement for Gillis to inform the school of this contact and that Cogan had done it voluntarily and in good faith.

Gillis said St Pius engaged its own media person, who confirmed the potential story would make Cogan a “substantial” part of it. Although the media consultant did not say an interview or statement was made, the school determined Cogan had misled them.

Having fallen ill because of the allegations that he misled the school by saying he had not provided a statement or interview, Cogan was asked to give a medical certificate, but Gillis said it was rejected as inadequate.

“[St Pius] did not follow their own available avenue under the enterprise agreement to have Cogan independently assessed by their own doctor.

“The school simply concluded that Cogan had disobeyed lawful and reasonable directions in relation to email use, his engagement with 60 Minutes, and his direction to get a medical report from his GP,” he said.

Gillis said one of the questions in Cogan’s case is whether or not an employer can provide a lawful and reasonable direction to an employee on how they conduct themselves or engage with others “when that conduct or engagement has nothing to do with the employer”.

He added there was no evidence of complaint received by anyone at the school about Cogan’s relationship with Lane while a teacher.

The only complaint came after Channel Nine reported Cogan had been terminated, allegedly because of his association with Lane, with a parent having said it was “not a good look for the school”.

Referring to the recently introduced Right to Disconnect laws, Gillis said it is a foundation of employment contracts that staff provide services to an employer during working hours, but “once those work hours and your duties are complete, you become entitled to do and associate with whom you wish without interference by your employer – so long as those activities and interactions are lawful”.

“There are going to be circumstances where an employee in their own hours may commit a crime or breach a law or obligation that affects their ability to continue their duties or, if they remain employed, may impact on their employer,” Gillis said.

“There may be terms in the employment contract where an employee undertakes they have not been charged with any criminal offence, and those undertakings continue during the term of the contract. If they are ultimately convicted, let’s say of drink driving, that may have an effect on someone’s employment.

“But activities outside of work should never and can never be controlled by an employer, unless that activity could adversely affect the employer or the employee’s ability to provide those services.”

Cogan is seeking reinstatement and compensation for lost wages.

St Pius X College declined to comment.