An Atlassian engineer has failed to stop the Australian software giant from putting him on a performance-management plan, despite claiming it had not done enough to help him manage his ADHD.
In a decision on Tuesday, the Federal Court made clear it was not prepared to act on the man’s “lived experience” claims about the consequences of his ADHD at work without any accompanying medical evidence.
The interim decision from Justice James Stellios points to the legal threats that employers can face in attempting to performance-manage staff, and the difficulty that employees without legal representation can have in confronting their bosses.
From April 2026, Atlassian had been telling the man that it had concerns about his performance, though he disputed that timeline. By early August, he was complaining to the company. Then, on August 24, the man received the lowest of Atlassian’s three performance ratings, freezing his salary and denying him a bonus, for reasons that were not recorded in the judgment.
That prompted the engineer to go to court on September 18, claiming Atlassian had breached workplace laws and seeking related urgent orders that were suppressed by the court.
Later, at a hearing, the engineer claimed that Atlassian had given him the bad performance rating in retaliation for raising concerns about how he was being treated. And began performance-managing him because he refused a settlement to leave the company.
He also claimed, the judge said, that the performance issues Atlassian had with him stemmed from “unaccommodated behavioural or cognitive manifestations” of his ADHD.
But the man, who was not represented by a lawyer in contrast to Atlassian’s use of external solicitors at K&L Gates and an employment-law barrister, did not provide any medical evidence about how his ADHD caused him to act at work.
“The absence of medical evidence before the court was acknowledged by the applicant who said that he could only speak to his lived experience,” Stellios noted.
The judge said he did not dispute that the engineer had ADHD, but he could not endorse his claims about its consequences, without further evidence. As a result, he declined to call off the performance-management plan proposed by Atlassian.
Atlassian managers also told the court they had not decided to actually fire the man.
Instead, Atlassian’s next step was to put him on a performance plan. The company said that would give the man substantial notice if it decided to fire him, while also allowing him to go back to court if necessary.
That meant, Stellios concluded, that there was no reason for the court to make orders restraining Atlassian from sacking the man.
Finally, the man asked for court orders to help manage his ADHD. That included avoiding meetings with one of his managers, and instead receiving written instructions.
While the engineer and Atlassian had discussed those arrangements in early September, before the case came to court, Stellios found they were only to operate for a “vague” trial period. It would be impracticable to order the arrangement be continued indefinitely, Stellios ruled.
Atlassian declined to comment, citing the ongoing proceedings. The engineer was contacted for comment.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.
