A former EY employee is claiming $150,000 over her dismissal, which the firm says was warranted

A former EY specialist alleges the firm discriminated against her and is claiming more than $150,000 in earnings, but EY says her sacking was warranted due to “misconduct”.

EY says Ayesha Penman’s sacking was warranted due to “substantiated serious and wilful misconduct’’.

A former EY SAP specialist alleges the firm discriminated against her and is claiming more than $150,000 in lost earnings, but EY says her sacking was warranted due to “substantiated serious and wilful misconduct’’.

Sydney-based Ayesha Penman, whose LinkedIn profile says she was director SAP APAC at EY from May 2021 until May 2023, has lodged a Federal Court action under the Fair Work Act, claiming discrimination and “dismissal in contravention of a general protection’’.

Ms Penman alleges she was dismissed in contravention of the Fair Work Act after exercising “a number of workplace rights’’ during the period of her employment.

These included “the ability to make a complaint in relation to her employment (and in particular, to make a complaint of bullying, harassment and discrimination)’’.

Other rights alleged to have been infringed were the ability to make an inquiry of her employer, specifically in relation to key performance indicators for the period May 2022-May 2023, and “the ability to make a complaint ... in particular relating to the failure to pay the full amount of a sales incentive’’ and about the amount of her fixed remuneration.

Ms Penman also alleges her workplace rights were infringed regarding her ability to make a complaint “over the determination not to increase her fixed remuneration’’ for the last year of her employment’’.

Former EY employee Ayesha Penman. Source: Supplied

She also says the firm advertised her job while she was suspended, and that her duties as SuccessFactors lead for Australia and New Zealand, which accounted for about 15 per cent of her closed sales over a one-year period, were assigned to another employee.

Ms Penman alleges she was asked to respond to allegations made about her “in circumstances where she was suffering a medical incapacity and was unable to respond’’.

Ms Penman also alleges she was denied procedural fairness during an investigation carried out by EY, including that there was a lack of particularisation of the allegations.

Ms Penman says in court documents that she has protected attributes including physical and mental disability and is claiming compensation for loss of fixed and incentive remuneration, loss of future earning capacity and compensation for “stress, anxiety, and exacerbation of pre-existing mental condition’’.

She is also claiming she is owed $150,000 for unpaid sales incentives.

EY, in its defence, has asked that the application be dismissed and says Ms Penman was “terminated as a consequence of findings of misconduct’’.

Any contravention of the Fair Work Act is denied by EY.

In a letter attached to Ms Penman’s claim, EY associate director and talent specialist team leader Laura Williams denies, on behalf of the firm, that Ms Penman was not afforded a proper opportunity to respond to complaints against her “from which the allegations were distilled’’.

Ms Williams also says in the letter that medical certificates provided by Ms Penman related only to her ability to work, not her ability to respond to allegations.

Ms Williams also says that in terms of detailing the allegation, another talent manager “specifically addressed your request for further particulars and provided these to you in relation to the allegations’’.

“On this basis, and having considered the specific allegations put to you, I am satisfied that you were provided with sufficient particulars to enable you to respond to the allegations,’’ the letter says.

The EY letter refutes the claim that Ms Penman was subjected to “differential treatment amounting to adverse action in relation to the conduct of the investigation’’.

“The purpose of this letter is to confirm that after careful consideration of the response and the findings of the investigations, we have determined to summarily terminate your employment with Ernst & Young Services effective today, March 9, 2023, as a result of the substantiated serious and wilful misconduct’’.

The particulars of the alleged misconduct are not set out in either Ms Penman’s claim or EY’s defence.

Ms Penman’s LinkedIn indicates she is currently “on sabbatical’’.