Complaint alleges racial hatred arising from incident involving co-worker
Australia’s Federal Court has granted summary judgment dismissing a former employee’s claims of racial and disability discrimination and contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA) against Coles Australia Pty Ltd, as well as striking out his negligence claims.
Coles – the respondent in Verma v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 679 – employed the applicant as a casual trolley collector on 22 November 2021 and terminated his employment on 9 February 2024.
On 9 April 2026, the applicant filed an amended statement of claim (ASOC). He asserted that his termination was unlawful under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA), the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA).
The applicant also alleged personal injury and loss due to Coles’ supposed negligence.
On 29 April 2026, Coles filed an amended interlocutory application. It sought summary judgment against the applicant under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act) in connection with the claims pleaded in the following paragraphs of the ASOC:
First, under s 31A(2) of the FCA Act and r 26.01(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the Federal Court of Australia entered summary judgment in Coles’ favour and dismissed the claims pleaded in the following paragraphs of the ASOC for lack of reasonable prospects of success:
Regarding [45] and [47], the court said it lacked the jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims for contraventions of ss 340 and 351 of the FWA, given that he could not satisfy both elements of s 370 of the FWA.
Regarding [50]–[52] and [56]–[58], the court noted that the complaint contained a single allegation of racial discrimination and racial hatred arising from a 12 January 2024 incident when a co-worker allegedly told the applicant: “F***ing Indian, I’ll smash your head in.”
The court saw no support for claims of:
The court added that the applicant’s correspondence with the Australian Human Rights Commission did not allege that Coles knew about any existing disability.
Second, as a consequence of the summarily denied claims, the court dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory applications filed on 11 May 2026 and 12 May 2026 for lack of utility. The court noted that:
Third, the court allowed Coles to amend paragraph 1(d) of its 29 April 2026 interlocutory application to seek to strike out paragraphs [59]–[62] of the ASOC as an alternative relief.
Fourth, under r 16.21(1)(e) of the Federal Court Rules, the court struck out the applicant’s claim for damages based on common law negligence as pleaded in [59]–[62], given that he did not abide by the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCR Act).
The court acknowledged that it would be premature to dismiss the applicant’s negligence claims at this stage. However, the court did not want the rest of the proceeding to languish while he pursued the process outlined in the WCR Act.
If and when the applicant could pursue a claim for damages under the WCR Act, the court pointed out that he could do so freely in the proper jurisdiction.
Lastly, the court reserved costs.
