Self-represented individuals beware: The risk of using AI for your employment law claim including show cause responses, unfair dismissals and other claims
Published on May 30, 2025 by Tim Grellman
If you are considering an employment law claim, such as unfair dismissal, you may have come across AI software that purports to be able to prepare your claim for you.
Understandably, you may wonder: can I rely on AI to prepare my employment law claim? Is it safe for AI to prepare my unfair dismissal application?
At the outset, it is important to observe that of course AI can assist you in handling your legal affairs. For example, AI may assist to make information about employment law claims more accessible and readily available to you.
However, a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission demonstrates the dangers that can arise if you are too dependant on AI.
Yang v Nought to Five Early Childhood Centre Incorporated
In Yang v Nought to Five Early Childhood Centre Incorporated, Commissioner McKinnon considered an unfair dismissal by Ms Yang who:
- Worked with the Respondent employer as a childcare worker from 22 August 2022 until she was dismissed on 12 February 2025;
- Experienced stress at work and, following incidents at work involving staffing ratios, commenced a period of leave from work from around March 2024;
- Commenced a workers’ compensation claim, but this was initially rejected in May 2024;
- Attended an independent medical examination in June 2024 and was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, affecting her ability to return to work;
- Was informed in August 2024 that her workers’ compensation was accepted on the basis that she had a work-related psychological injury;
- Was informed during a further medical assessment in February 2025 that she was unable to return to the workplace due to her medical condition, and was being assisted to obtain alternative employment.
In light of Ms Yang’s inability to return to the workplace, the employer asked her to show cause as to why her employment should not be terminated on the basis that she could not perform the role. Ms Yang provided a response to this which pointed to alleged bullying incidents, asserted that she was available, and pointed to the employer’s obligation to make reasonable adjustments. This was peculiar, given that the show cause response was not related to a refusal to make reasonable adjustments; it centred on whether Ms Yang could return to work at all.
Despite this, the employer proceeded to terminate Ms Yang’s employment on the basis that she could not perform the inherent requirements of her role.
Commissioner McKinnon determines dismissal was not unfair
Commissioner McKinnon determined that Ms Yang’s unfitness to work for a prolonged period was a valid reason for termination. Further, procedural fairness had been afforded to Ms Yang on the basis that she was given a chance to respond to the proposed termination of her employment.
Importantly, in relation to Ms Yang’s response to the show cause, Commissioner McKinnon observed that Ms Yang’s use of AI software, ChatGPT, to prepare her material meant she did not properly address the issues in the case:
“Ms Yang relied on ChatGPT to assist in the preparation of her submissions in this case… it seems possible that she also relied on ChatGPT to assist with her responses to the show cause letter… This would explain why the responses did not answer the question asked by [the employer] directly and appear to have misconceived the issues in dispute as being one of refusal to make reasonable adjustments… instead of the actual issue, which was her inability to return to work.”
Show cause responses are complex. They require the worker to grapple with complicated issues and squarely address the reasons relied on by the employer for the proposed termination of employment. In this case, AI worked against the worker including because it failed to assist Ms Yang to properly conceive the issues in dispute.
Key takeaways
AI is a useful tool in many ways, particularly if you are looking to quickly access general information in relation to a legal dispute. However, as Yang demonstrates, AI has its limitations and you should be cautious before being too dependent on AI software such as ChatGPT and others. In particular, if you are a self-represented individual, you should be cautious before relying too heavily on AI software to prepare a show cause response, commence proceedings and/or prepare legal submissions in your case.
As observed by Commissioner McKinnon, “such tools can be immensely useful, but they are no substitute for one’s own knowledge and understanding of the facts or issues.” Indeed, for all its uses, the case demonstrates that AI is also unlikely to be a not a proper substitute for early legal advice, particularly in complex matters involving show cause responses and unfair dismissal applications.
If you are facing such a process, you will be best positioned by obtaining sound legal advice as to how best to respond. We can assist you with this and provide you advice on your prospects in a claim.
Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. If you are seeking professional advice on any legal matters, you can contact Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers on 1800 059 278 or via our Contact Page and one of our lawyers will be able to assist you.
