Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy after a series of performance-management plans. The centre manager remained the principal assessor even though she was the subject of known relationship and bullying complaints by Ms Fahmy. The Employment Relations Authority found that this seriously undermined objective evaluation and made the dismissal unjustified.

Performance concerns and a deteriorating relationship

Ms Fahmy began work as a registered early-childhood teacher at Marc Early Learning Centre in April 2021. The centre is a small, not-for-profit community service governed by a volunteer board.

The employer said concerns arose about aspects of Ms Fahmy's practice and communication. Informal guidance, a 2022 warning and later performance-management plans addressed matters including following instructions, communication with children and the quality of written learning material.

Ms Fahmy disputed the assessment and said the centre manager, Margaret Moss, micromanaged and bullied her. She raised concerns about their relationship from 2023 and made formal bullying complaints in May 2024 and April 2025. External investigations did not substantiate those complaints.

The issue was objective assessment

The Authority accepted that the performance concerns were disclosed and that the overall period allowed for improvement was reasonable. It also recognised that a small employer may properly engage external advisers and that using external consultants did not itself compromise the bullying investigations.

The decisive problem was different. The board and its HR advisers knew there was a serious relationship issue between Ms Fahmy and Ms Moss. They also knew that Ms Moss would not endorse renewal of Ms Fahmy's teaching certificate. That placed Ms Moss in a position where bringing an open mind to the performance assessment could reasonably be difficult.

Despite that knowledge, Ms Moss continued as the primary standards assessor and evaluator throughout the third performance-management plan. Others attended or contributed to some weekly sessions, but the Authority found that her central role seriously undermined the perception of an objective assessment.

A proposed independent evaluation was rejected

After the final performance plan, the employer proposed termination. Ms Fahmy's representative asked it to reconsider and specifically proposed an objective evaluation of her performance.

The employer granted two days' additional special leave but then rejected the need for a further objective assessment and confirmed dismissal the next day. A fair and reasonable employer, aware of the relationship conflict and complaints, would have ensured the process was not conducted almost solely by Ms Moss. Safeguards should have included measurable targets, full support and an objective evaluation.

The failure to do that made the performance dismissal unjustified. The Authority separately considered several disadvantage claims, but the central successful finding and remedies arose from the unjustified dismissal.

Reinstatement, mediation and monetary remedies

The Authority ordered Ms Fahmy's reinstatement. Because the employment relationship would require careful management, the parties were directed to attend mediation with a view to agreeing and facilitating her return to the workplace.

Lost wages were awarded from the end of employment until 30 April 2026. For any period of casual employment, the calculation is the difference between what she would have earned at the centre and her actual earnings. The parties were directed to liaise on the amount, with leave to return to the Authority if necessary.

The dismissal affected Ms Fahmy's confidence and self-respect and severed relationships with children, parents and colleagues. The Authority awarded $25,000 compensation. No contribution reduction was made because the termination arose from a performance process and Ms Fahmy did not contribute to the situation resulting in dismissal.

Why this case matters

Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare illustrates that procedural duration and repeated meetings do not establish objective performance management. When the employee's evaluator is part of the underlying relationship dispute, an employer should consider an independent assessor or other meaningful safeguards. That protects both the employee and the manager and gives the final decision a reliable evidential foundation.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load, use the button below.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.