University of Tasmania refutes ex-deputy V-C’s termination claim

The University of Tasmania is refuting a former senior executive’s claims that he was fired as a result of his diagnosis – a claim that centres on varied accounts of his alleged behaviour.

Former UTAS deputy vice-chancellor Ian Anderson. Picture: Nikki Davis-Jones

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The University of Tasmania is refuting a former senior executive’s legal claim that he was fired in part because of his autism diagnosis, which is centred on varied ­accounts of his alleged behaviour in a meeting with two other ­academics.

Former deputy vice-chancellor Ian Anderson, who was on $550,000, had his employment quietly terminated in December because he allegedly acted “in­appropriately” on a team Zoom meeting when he made comments about not wearing pants, and during a separate in-person meeting when he allegedly yelled and “hit the desk with his fist or hand”, according to a statement of claim filed to the Federal Court in March.

Professor Anderson, who was previously deputy secretary for ­Indigenous Affairs in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and deputy vice-chancellor at ANU, said his behaviour during that latter August 2024 meeting was “symptomatic of his Autism Spectrum Disorder”, with his two colleagues showing up to his office unannounced, speaking loudly, and aggressively causing him to become overwhelmed and “tap the table with the side of his hand”.

He said, in his statement of claim, he “begged” those staff to stop multiple times while reminding them about his ASD, which made him prone to sensory overload.

UTAS, in its legal defence to the Federal Court, denied his version of events. The university doubled down, saying Professor Anderson “hit his fists hard on the table”, repeatedly raised his voice stating “You are wrong”, said “I know how to run this country. You have no idea”, and told his colleagues “You cannot leave” when they sought to exit the room.

The university admitted Professor Anderson had disclosed he was neurodivergent and had Asperger’s Syndrome, and that the university had agreed to adjust his schedule after he indicated his ­Asperger’s was affecting his concentration.

UTAS said its chief people officer sent a letter to Professor Anderson a few days after the meeting about the allegations, and then about two weeks after that, setting out concerns with his response to the allegations.

They also outlined “further concerns relating to (his) performance and conduct”.

Professor Anderson said he responded by telling the university he had been bullied and unfairly treated, and the allegations were “lacking procedural fairness”.

A termination letter, summarised in the legal documents filed by Professor Anderson, called his conduct in the meeting “inappropriate”, and also referred to an incident where he allegedly ended a team Zoom meeting in early Aug­ust by stating: “I need you to leave now because I have to stand up and I’m in my ­underpants”.

HR found he was fully clothed in the meeting, Professor Anderson noted.

UTAS also said vice-chancellor Rufus Black “had informal coaching and guidance conversations” with Professor Anderson, in response to Professor Anderson’s claim that “no performance concerns” had been raised until three months earlier.

Professor Anderson took UTAS to the Federal Court in May for unfair dismissal, claiming the university “discriminated” between himself and other employees by “treating symptoms and behaviours of (his) ASD as misconduct and subjecting (him) to a vexatious and irregular misconduct process”.

He also claims the university suspended and then terminated his employment, and took other adverse actions, “because of (his) disability”. He is seeking a declaration from UTAS that it discriminated against him, as well as compensation.

In its defence, UTAS admitted Professor Anderson was terminated but said it “dismissed (him) as a result of concerns regarding (his) conduct and performance” which included making his two colleagues “feel unsafe, distressed and threatened” as a result of the August meeting.

It denied Professor Anderson’s claim that he was terminated because of his disability.

UTAS said he also breached the obligation in his contract to take reasonable care “not to adversely affect the health and safety of other people at the workplace” and breached the university’s behaviour policy when he raised his voice and acted with aggression during the meeting.

UTAS said Professor Anderson was not entitled to any relief.