Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
An in-house lawyer has levelled a series of allegations against her former employer, claiming bullying, cultural issues and the termination of a pregnancy for a new role that never materialised.
Courtney Kelley has advanced explosive claims against Mineral Resources and CEO Chris Ellison in proceedings that alleged she was fired in retaliation for exercising workplace rights.
This included an allegation that Ellison received a letter asking for his help with her workplace concerns, only for him to tell others at a meeting he wanted to “just get rid of her”.
She also alleged the general counsel told her not to “burn bridges” and that she should cooperate with the in-house legal team “so as not to depart her job in a manner that was destructive or likely to destroy [Kelley’s] reputation and career”.
From June 2023, Kelley claimed she was led to believe there would be a position for her in the in-house legal team on the basis of a new contract or variation to an existing contract.
So that she could “devote full attention to the new role”, Kelley alleged she made “adjustments to her life plans”, including undergoing a procedure to terminate a pregnancy.
Later in the amended statement of claim, Kelley alleged there was a failure on the part of Mineral Resources to implement a change of employment conditions. These paragraphs were advanced in support of her psychiatric injury damages claim.
Kelley said she was allegedly informed the following February about a “distressing” proposal to make her redundant.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) (Division 2) heard Kelley was terminated in May 2024 after having allegedly spent months complaining about bullying and cultural issues within Mineral Resources’ land access team.
She began the FCFCOA proceedings in 2024, alleging Mineral Resources took adverse action against her in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). She alleges Ellison was “knowingly involved in the contravention”.
The proceedings also concerned a quantum meruit claim over allegations that Mineral Resources engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to Kelley’s employment.
Last week, Mineral Resources sought to have her statement of claim struck out or, alternatively, that parts of the claim be struck out and Kelley have the opportunity to replead her case against Mineral Resources but not against Ellison.
While Judge Allyson Ladhams found some deficiencies, they were “not so extensive and significant as to warrant the striking out of the whole of the amended statement of claim”.
As for Ellison, Judge Ladhams was not satisfied Kelley had failed to disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action against him.
While there was no evidence to suggest Kelley reported directly to Ellison, there was also no evidence before the court “denying that he made the decision to terminate Kelley’s employment”.
“The respondents appear to rely in part on the lack of direct reporting relationship to suggest that there is no reasonably arguable cause of action against Ellison,” the judge said.
“However, if Ellison made the decision to terminate Kelley’s employment, as is alleged in the amended statement of claim, the absence of a direct reporting relationship does not, of itself, prevent Kelley from establishing her claim.”
