‘Underpants and angst’: details emerge of academic Ian Anderson’s legal fight

A former University of Tasmania executive says he ‘experienced sensory overload’ due to autism during a meeting, but the university says he behaved inappropriately, which in part led to his termination.

Ian Anderson, former deputy vice-chancellor at the University of Tasmania. 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.

A former University of Tasmania deputy vice-chancellor was dismissed from his job in part 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 yelled and “hit the desk with his fist or hand”, court documents allege.

Ian Anderson, who was earning $550,000 when he was quietly let go in December, said his behaviour during that latter late August 2024 meeting, when his colleagues spoke loudly and aggressively at him causing him to “tap” the table, was “symptomatic of his Autism Spectrum Disorder”.

He claims he “begged” those staff to stop and reminded them at the time about his ASD, which made him prone to sensory overload and becoming overwhelmed. He also said he had previously disclosed his neurodivergence and sensory overload to his direct boss, Vice-Chancellor Rufus Black, and changes were made to his schedule as result.

A termination letter, summarised in legal documents filed by Professor Anderson, called it “inappropriate behaviour” and against policy.

Professor Anderson has taken UTAS to the Federal Court 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 “because of (his) disability”.

Professor Anderson, who was previously deputy secretary for ­Indigenous Affairs in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and deputy vice-chancellor at ANU, is seeking a declaration from UTAS that it discriminated, as well as compensation.

UTAS acting general counsel Susannah Windsor said the university “refutes the allegation the university discriminated against this former employee and will strongly defend the claim”. UTAS has not yet filed its defence.

A termination letter, referred to in his statement of claim, also notes other “inappropriate behaviours” cited as “reasons for termination” such as “repeatedly” referring to the northwest Tasmanian city of Bernie as “Dirty Burnie”, and allegedly ending 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 but said that it nonetheless “directly undermines” the health and safety of others in the workplace, as did the alleged “Dirty Burnie” comments.

The termination letter also noted Professor Anderson “had not met his obligations as deputy vice-chancellor in respect of his performance”, despite “no performance concerns” being raised until three months earlier, according to the statement of claim.

At that August 23, 2024, meeting, UTAS’s HR department determined Professor Anderson had become “visibly frustrated and angry and interrupted” one of the staff multiple times, “forcibly hit the desk with his fist or hand during the meeting”, raised his voice repeatedly, and shouted at his colleague that “they ‘could not leave’ the room”.

Professor Anderson “denied” this version. He said, in his statement of claim, that his colleagues showed up unannounced while his executive assistant was away from her desk, spoke quickly and loudly, and had an “increasingly aggressive demeanour towards (him)”.

He said he “experienced sensory overload due to his ASD”, and “begged” them “multiple times … to stop” while reminding them of his disability.

He said he “tapped the table with the side of his hand as he was overwhelmed and in desperation to make the situation stop”.

A few days later, Professor Anderson was sent a “show cause letter” and responded that he had Asperger’s syndrome.

He was directed to work from home and immediately took sick leave for two months due to a medical condition, according to his statement of claim.

A month later, Professor Anderson was sent a letter of “additional concerns” relating to his conduct and performance, which he says were “never raised previously”, including that he failed to attend meetings, failed to make “important decisions in a timely manner”, made budget commitments that did not have finance approval, and lacked “strategic ­direction”.

In a letter in response, he said he had been “bullied, discriminated against and unfairly treated”, that the allegations made against him were “vague and lacking procedural fairness”, and that he cancelled meetings because he was on sick leave.

In mid-December, he received a “findings letter” from the chief people officer which laid out all the allegations, before receiving the termination letter in mid-to-late December.

Professor Anderson also claims in the Federal Court that “adverse action” was taken because he took sick leave and made complaints about bullying and feeling unsafe.