Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A former Cisco Systems lawyer who claimed he was forced out after a serious illness, a disputed bonus, and a salary cut of more than half has lost his unfair dismissal bid, with the commission finding the company’s handling of his pay was marked by “incompetence rather than malice”.
Working under the strain of illness, former Cisco Systems lawyer Vinod Prasad Sharma, who was employed as senior corporate counsel from 2015 to 2025, accused the tech giant of pushing him out through a disputed bonus, a salary cut of more than half, and alleged failures to accommodate his health needs – but the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found the company’s conduct reflected “incompetence rather than malice” and ruled he had not been dismissed.
FWC commissioner Pearl Lim branded Sharma as a “problematic witness”, criticising his evasive answers, inconsistent recollections, and refusal to make reasonable concessions during cross-examination.
Sharma’s account of being pushed out of his role was undermined for the commissioner by his “emotion and bias”.
While the commissioner acknowledged that his distress was “very human”, she found Sharma was not a “reliable narrator”.
The commissioner found that Cisco’s three witnesses also faced credibility concerns over poor recollection, evasive answers, and unbelievable evidence, prompting the commission to place greater weight on contemporaneous emails, messages, and medical records.
The main aspect of Sharma’s evidence was that in September 2022, he had a positive performance review and was supposedly promised by a Cisco vice president that he would be promoted to a director role.
Following being passed over for a senior legal role prior to hamstring surgery, Sharma requested workplace adjustments, which included a saddle chair and parking bay, but was ultimately denied both and advised to work remotely.
After contracting COVID-19 during a 2023 work conference in Atlanta and developing serious health complications, Sharma alleged Cisco restricted his return to work, while the company maintained it was supporting his recovery and coordinating benefits.
Upon his return to work, prior to submitting a workers’ compensation claim and formally disputing his performance rating, treatment, and medical privacy, Sharma claimed he was assigned an unreasonable workload and stripped of major responsibilities.
Despite being aware of Sharma’s health issues and reliance on his salary, Cisco cut his wages by more than half and capped them at the statutory workers’ compensation limit amid unclear decision making and evasive evidence from its senior employees.
In November 2024, Sharma interviewed for a position at another company, with a proposed start date of 18 February 2025 and a slightly lower base salary compared to Cisco’s wage, but with substantial sign-on and anniversary bonuses.
After years of serious health complications and mounting grievances with Cisco, Sharma said the company repudiated his employment contract and viewed himself as being constructively dismissed, effective 2 March 2025.
It was found that although Cisco mishandled several aspects of Sharma’s employment, including workplace accommodations, communication, bonus payments, and wage reductions, its conduct did not amount to a forced resignation under s 386(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act.
The commissioner rejected Sharma’s interpretation of key events, ultimately disagreeing with Sharma’s idea that Cisco was unreasonable or unwilling to facilitate his return to work.
Citation: Vinod Prasad Sharma v Cisco Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 3205
