# Can I be fired from my job in Melbourne because I have childcare duties?

- Jurisdiction: Australia
- Practice area: Employment Law
- Published: 2026-11-05
- Last updated: 2026-11-05
- Canonical: https://lawasked.com/au/employment-law/can-i-fired-my-job-melbourne-because-i

## Question

I have been working as a full-time administrative assistant at a medium-sized logistics firm in Melbourne, Victoria, for about three and a half years. My salary is roughly $65,000 per annum. Everything was going fine until last month, when my daughter started preschool and I requested a slight change to my start time to accommodate the drop-off schedule. My manager, who has been quite difficult lately, told me on the 14th of October that my 'lack of flexibility' was becoming a problem for the team's labour requirements. Two days ago, on the 16th of October, I was called into a private meeting and told that my employment was being terminated effective immediately because they needed someone with 'unrestricted availability' to cover the early morning shifts. I have already tried speaking to our HR representative to explain that I am happy to make up the hours later in the afternoon, but they simply said the decision was final and based on business needs. I am worried that I am being unfairly targeted just because I have family responsibilities. I am unsure if it is actually legal for them to let me go specifically because my childcare arrangements interfere with their preferred roster, or if they have a valid excuse to end my contract like this.

## Summary

It depends on whether your employer's decision was actually motivated by your childcare duties. If they fired you because of your family responsibilities rather than genuine business needs, it may be illegal discrimination.

## Analysis

Under Australian law, specifically the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, an employer may be acting unlawfully if they discriminate against you based on your family responsibilities. The law states that an employer discriminates "if: (a) the employer treats the employee less favourably than the employer treats, or would treat, a person without family responsibilities in circumstances that are the same or not materially different; and (b) the less favourable treatment is by reason of: (i) the family responsibilities of the employee..." [1]. In your case, being terminated on 16 October because you requested a schedule change for preschool drop-off could be seen as less favourable treatment caused by your family responsibilities.

However, your employer has claimed the termination was due to "business needs" and the requirement for "unrestricted availability." The Fair Work Act 2009 aims to give effect to international standards regarding "Workers with Family Responsibilities" [2]. This means the law seeks to protect workers from being targeted because of their care duties. 

Whether this is legal depends on the true reason for your dismissal. If the "business need" for early morning shifts is a genuine requirement that cannot be met by your proposed afternoon makeup hours, the employer might argue the dismissal was not discriminatory. If, however, they would have allowed a different employee without children to have the same flexibility, or if the "unrestricted availability" requirement is simply a pretext to get rid of you because of your daughter's preschool schedule, you may have a claim. The law is unsettled on how a court weighs a genuine business requirement against a claim of discrimination in specific roster disputes.

## Statutory citations

- Sex Discrimination Act 1984, Section 7A - Discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities [in force] (https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A02868/latest/text)
  > an employer discriminates against an employee on the ground of the employee’s family responsibilities if: (a) the employer treats the employee less favourably than the employer treats, or would treat, a person without family responsibilities in circumstances that are the same or not materially different; and (b) the less favourable treatment is by reason of: (i) the family responsibilities of the employee...
- Fair Work Act 2009, Section 771 - Object of this Division [in force] (https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2009A00028/latest/text)
  > The object of this Division is to give effect, or further effect, to: ... (b) the ILO Convention (No. 156) concerning Equal Opportunities and Equal Treatment for Men and Women Workers: Workers with Family Responsibilities...

---
General information only, not legal advice. See https://lawasked.com/disclaimer