Nurse complained about her treatment, then was sacked

Wei Han, known at work as Casey, had been a registered nurse at St Basil’s aged care home in Lakemba, Sydney, for over nine years. She is Chinese. From mid-2019 her workload rose by about 40%, and, she said, she began complaining that she was overworked, unsupported and treated differently from a group of Filipino co-workers.
In August 2019 she called a colleague “a bitch” in what she said was a joke that misfired, and in September she was given a first and final warning. The court later found the warning did not breach the Fair Work Act. Ms Han kept raising concerns, including formal complaints in December 2019 that a colleague was targeting her and that others had refused to help her with residents.
Instead of investigating those complaints, the court found, the general manager turned them against her. Ms Han was called to an “outcomes meeting” with no clue what it was about, and on 23 January 2020 she was dismissed, accused of poor clinical care and of asking an unqualified team leader to give a resident oxygen. The home also complained about her to the nursing regulator, which closed the matter with no further action.
Ms Han ran the trial herself. Under the Fair Work Act’s reverse onus (s 361), St Basil’s had to prove its reasons were innocent. Justice Rares found it could not. There was no rule stopping team leaders giving oxygen, there was no objective basis for the concerns about her care, and the general manager’s “investigation” was, in his words, “a trumped up attack”. The dismissal was found to be because of Ms Han’s complaints and her race.
In May 2025 a second judge ordered St Basil’s to pay $175,000 for past lost earnings, $61,559.62 for future loss, $75,000 in general damages and $10,000 for future treatment, plus penalties of $60,000 paid to Ms Han herself.
If you are disciplined soon after making complaints at work, keep copies of your complaints and of every letter you receive. In a Fair Work general protections claim, the employer has to prove the real reason for what it did.
Compensation and penalties were set in Han v St Basil’s Homes (No 2) [2025] FCA 448 (6 May 2025). Interest and costs were left to be decided separately.
A published decision of the Federal Court of Australia, retold in plain English. Lawcaptain did not act in this case. Every outcome depends on its own facts. General information, not legal advice about your situation.
Talk to us.
Call 1300 967 552, or leave your details and we will call you.
Discrimination
Job offer withdrawn just after his passport showed he was 71Federal Circuit Court of Australia · 5 February 2021Read the case study
Told to train his replacement at 68, he won more on appealFederal Court of Australia · 4 May 2023Read the case study
Sacked the day she stayed home with a sick childFederal Circuit Court of Australia · 13 December 2018Read the case study