Negligent Demotion: When Mishandled Management Becomes a Psychiatric Injury
A recent decision from the Queensland District Court, Gairns v Pro Music Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 118, serves as a powerful reminder that an employer's duty of care extends to protecting the psychological health of its employees, even during sensitive management actions like demotion. The court found the employer negligent for the abrupt and insensitive manner in which a long-term employee was demoted, causing a significant psychiatric injury, and awarded $395,767 in damages.
Case Summary: The Abrupt Demotion
The case involved Mr Gairns, a long-term internal sales supervisor for Pro Music Pty Ltd. Mr Gairns sued his employer for damages related to a psychiatric injury he suffered following a meeting with the managing director, Ian Corazzol, in February 2019.
The Critical Meeting
The incident occurred late on a Friday afternoon. Mr Corazzol telephoned Mr Gairns and requested he come to his office, without giving any warning or indication of the meeting's purpose.
During this unannounced meeting, Mr Corazzol told Mr Gairns that:
- He would no longer be the internal sales supervisor, effective the following Monday.
- His salary would be reduced by several thousand dollars.
- Mr Gairns was not provided with a job description for his new, demoted role.
Crucially, the meeting was held in an open-plan office setting, and the court accepted that Mr Corazzol raised his voice and told Mr Gairns there was nothing he could do about the decision, leaving the employee feeling "utterly stunned" and humiliated.
Employer's Knowledge of Vulnerability
The employer was well aware that Mr Gairns was an emotional person whose personality meant he could "quite easily" become stressed and anxious. In the weeks before the meeting, the managing director had even observed Mr Gairns to be visibly distressed, sobbing and hyperventilating, due to personal issues, and had delayed the demotion meeting as a result of this concern.
The Court’s Findings on Negligence
The key issue was whether the employer owed a duty of care to Mr Gairns in managing the demotion and whether they breached that duty.
Duty of Care Existed
The Court rejected the employer's argument that the demotion related to an inherent contractual right or disciplinary process (which can often shield employers from negligence claims). Instead, the judge found:
- The demotion was not part of a formal disciplinary process nor was Mr Gairns' performance shown to have warranted investigation.
- The manner in which the demotion was conducted fell within the ordinary course of employment and the general duty to provide a safe system of work.
- The employer's prior knowledge of Mr Gairns' emotional tendencies made the risk of him suffering a recognised psychiatric illness "real and not insignificant" if the demotion was handled poorly.
Breach of Duty and Failure to Take Reasonable Care
The Court found that a reasonable person in the employer's position would have easily taken obvious steps to avoid the foreseeable risk of injury, all of which the employer failed to do:
- Written Notice and Explanation: Provide Mr Gairns with proper written notice of the specific performance concerns that would justify demoting a long-term employee.
- Opportunity to Respond: Give Mr Gairns a proper opportunity to respond to the concerns before the meeting.
- Confidential Setting: Conduct the meeting in a confidential and calm manner (not in the open-plan office where co-workers could overhear) to avoid unnecessary humiliation.
The judge determined that the employer's approach was "inadequate and misguided" and that the demotion was conducted in such an unreasonable manner that it would likely have been very distressing for any employee, regardless of pre-existing vulnerability. The failure to take the first three of these precautions was deemed a necessary condition for the psychiatric injury.
The Injury and Causation
The psychiatric injury was diagnosed as an exacerbation of a pre-existing panic disorder (which resolved) and an ongoing aggravation of a pre-existing anxiety disorder. The Court also found that the increase in Mr Gairns' use of alcohol and cannabis was a "mal-adaptive coping strategy" for his anxiety, which was caused by the negligent demotion.
The Damages Award
The total judgment for Mr Gairns was $395,767.
The major components of the award included:
| Head of Damage | Award |
|---|---|
| Past Economic Loss (Loss of income to date) | $186,000 |
| Future Economic Loss (Inability to work full-time until retirement) | $130,000 |
| General Damages (Pain and suffering) | $4,350 |
| Past & Future Loss of Superannuation | $33,290 |
| Other Expenses and Interest | $42,127 |
| TOTAL | $395,767 |
The significant part of the award relates to the impact on Mr Gairns' earning capacity, as the Court accepted that his injury limited him to part-time work in a low-stress environment for the rest of his working life.
Key Takeaways for Employers and Employees
This case reinforces that employers have a legal duty to conduct management actions, including demotions and performance management, in a procedurally fair and psychologically safe manner.
| For Employers | For Employees |
|---|---|
| Act Reasonably: If a management decision (like demotion or disciplinary action) is not done reasonably, the employer loses the legal shield that would normally protect it from negligence claims. | Your Mental Health Matters: The law recognises psychiatric injuries, and distress or humiliation is compensable if it causes a recognised illness. |
| Be on Notice: If an employee shows evident signs of vulnerability or has a known history of anxiety or stress, the duty of care owed to them is heightened. | Foreseeability of Harm: Even if you don't have a known vulnerability, a very unreasonable or hostile action by a manager may still be considered negligent because it would foreseeably harm any employee. |
| Follow Procedure: Always provide written notice, a clear explanation of the concerns, and an opportunity for the employee to respond to the decision before a final demotion meeting. | The Manner Matters: The abruptness, the lack of warning, and the public/humiliating setting of a crucial meeting can be key factors in proving negligence. |
| Ensure Confidentiality: Sensitive employment discussions must be held in a way that cannot be overheard or seen by other staff, to prevent unnecessary humiliation. | Compensation is Possible: Damages can cover income lost in the past, future inability to work, and general compensation for pain and suffering. |
This is general information only and you should obtain professional advice relevant to your circumstances. If you need more information or if you need assistance or advice on how to proceed please call us on 07 5538 2766 or email jeff@dwyerlaw.com.au today.








