ClickCease

Roseanne Sheridan developed PTSD after a serious threat from a resident at work and was dismissed for medical incapacity about six months later. Specialist ACC information and rehabilitation planning were still developing, and a return-to-work process had not been completed.

The short answer

The Employment Court overturned the ERA and found both the dismissal and process unjustifiable. Pact Group moved too quickly, failed to await important medical information and did not meaningfully engage with rehabilitation options; Ms Sheridan received $30,000 compensation plus six months' lost wages less relevant ACC payments, with no contribution reduction.


Sheridan v Pact Group [2026] NZEmpC 51 - medical incapacity dismissal overturned

Roseanne Sheridan's medical-incapacity dismissal had been upheld by the Employment Relations Authority. On challenge, Chief Judge Christina Inglis reached the opposite conclusion: both the decision to dismiss and the process leading to it were unjustifiable.

Non-publication: the Employment Court prohibited publication of the names or identifying particulars of residents of the community home covered by the order. This article deliberately does not identify them.
Relationship to the ERA decision: Substantive reversal. The ERA found the dismissal justified. The Employment Court held Ms Sheridan was unjustifiably dismissed and awarded compensation and lost remuneration.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2026] NZEmpC 51
  • Judge: Chief Judge Christina Inglis
  • Judgment date: 18 March 2026
  • Underlying ERA determination: Sheridan v Pact Group [2025] NZERA 1
  • ERA outcome: medical-incapacity dismissal justified
  • Employment Court outcome: dismissal and process unjustifiable
  • Compensation: $30,000
  • Lost remuneration: six months' lost wages, less relevant ACC payments
  • Contribution: no reduction

How the incapacity arose

Ms Sheridan worked as a community support worker in a residential service. In January 2021 a resident threatened serious violence towards her. She subsequently developed post-traumatic stress disorder and went on sick leave.

The employer initially raised disciplinary concerns about her handling of the incident, but the employment process later shifted to possible termination for medical incapacity.

The Court's concern about timing

Pact Group dismissed Ms Sheridan after about six months. The Court considered that too soon in the particular circumstances, especially where the incapacity arose from a workplace incident and specialist ACC information and a return-to-work process were still developing.

The employer knew a specialist report was pending but pressed Ms Sheridan to provide medical information she did not possess. It also declined requests to wait for the rehabilitation information and did not meaningfully engage with proposals for a collaborative return-to-work process.

Workplace injury and rehabilitation

The Court emphasised that where incapacity arises from a workplace incident, an employer may generally be expected to take reasonable rehabilitation steps and consider alternatives capable of addressing operational concerns before resorting to dismissal.

Business needs remain relevant, and an employer is not required to hold a job open indefinitely, but those principles did not justify Pact Group's approach on these facts.

The result and remedies

The challenge succeeded. The Court held that Ms Sheridan was unjustifiably dismissed. Pact Group was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation and a sum equivalent to six months' lost wages, less amounts received from ACC during the relevant period. No reduction was made for contribution because the alleged blameworthy failure to provide medical information was not established.

Why this case matters

Medical-incapacity dismissal is not simply a question of how many months an employee has been absent. The employer must obtain and fairly assess the best available medical information, give reasonable time for recovery, consider rehabilitation and return-to-work options, and take particular care where the incapacity itself arose from the workplace.

If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the applicable time limit can be critical.

Read the full Employment Court judgment

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

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


Source: Employment Court judgment and related public material.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Employment Court Cases, Medical Incapacity
Santamaria v Television New Zealand Ltd [2026] NZEmpC 210 - lawyer-led workplace review was not legally privileged

In an interlocutory Employment Court judgment, TVNZ failed to establish legal advice privilege over the Robins Report, a lawyer-led review of recruitment and workplace processes. The Court also rejected broad non-publication orders based only on general privacy and reputational concerns. The substantive dispute remains unresolved.

Courage v Attorney-General [2026] NZEmpC 178 - Labour Inspectorate Gloriavale decisions contained reviewable errors

Former Gloriavale members successfully judicially reviewed Labour Inspectorate decisions to take no further action on earlier inquiries. The Employment Court found errors concerning the Inspectorate's jurisdictional threshold, child workers, irrelevant considerations and failures to make adequate further inquiries. Remedies were left for a reconvened hearing.

LMN v STC [2026] NZEmpC 137 - unauthorised reference checks and medical leave caused unjustified disadvantage

The Employment Court found two unjustified disadvantages in a long-running school employment dispute: former employers listed on LMN's CV were contacted without authority while her grievances were being investigated, and medical certificates were not properly recognised when dealing with her leave. Most of LMN's wider claims failed.

Browse topics