Yesterday’s judgment in Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (“the ABC”) serves as a compelling and yet another cautionary reminder to employers of the legal and reputational risks associated with failing to follow proper disciplinary procedures, particularly in high-profile and politically sensitive contexts. The case centred on the ABC’s decision to terminate prominent journalist Ms Antoinette Lattouf’s (“Ms Lattouf”) employment after social media posts concerning the Israel/Gaza conflict.
At the heart of the dispute were issues of procedural fairness, compliance with enterprise agreements, and protections for political opinion under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the FW Act”). The Court found the ABC had both breached the Enterprise Agreement by failing to afford Ms Lattouf a fair process and unlawfully terminated her employment, partly due to her political beliefs.
This matter underscores the absolute necessity for employers to exercise impartial discretion and heightened sensitivity when addressing or managing employee conduct, particularly in cases where public expression intersects with legally protected attributes or beliefs. It also affirms the fundamental right of employees to express political opinions without fear of retaliation or adverse employment consequences.
Summary of the History
The Plaintiff, Ms Lattouf, a presenter at the ABC, became involved in a dispute after posting content on social media about the Israel/Gaza war. The ABC instructed her not to post about the conflict, but she continued to post. On 20 December 2023, the ABC effectively removed her from her role, informing her that she was no longer required to present the remaining programs and should leave the workplace immediately. The ABC justified its decision by alleging breaches of ABC policies and editorial wrongdoing.
However, the ABC failed to comply with the procedural requirements under the Enterprise Agreement, specifically clause 55.2.1, which governs the handling of allegations of misconduct. The ABC did not provide Ms Lattouf with written notice of the allegations, did not inform her of her right to representation, and denied her a proper opportunity to respond. Ms Lattouf claimed this amounted to unlawful dismissal and contended her termination was partly motivated by her political views opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, protected under s 772(1) of the FW Act.
The ABC disputed that Ms Lattouf was dismissed, asserting no formal disciplinary action or dismissal occurred, and argued that her social media posts breached ABC policies justifying their actions.
Court’s Findings:
The Court found that the ABC made allegations of misconduct and substantiated them without affording procedural fairness, thereby breaching Enterprise Agreement clauses 55.2.1 and 55.2.2, which require written notice and an opportunity to respond. The ABC did not inform Ms Lattouf of her right to be represented.
By excluding Ms Lattouf from work and terminating her employment, the ABC effectively dismissed her, contrary to clause 55.4.1(f) requiring dismissal only for serious misconduct. The Court held that the dismissal was not based on serious misconduct, as the ABC conceded the social media posts did not breach any policy, including the Social Media Guidelines. Therefore, the dismissal was unlawful.
The termination contravened s 772(1) of the FW Act, which prohibits adverse action based on political opinions. The Court rejected allegations that dismissal was due to Ms Lattouf’s race or national origin.
Regarding Ms Lattouf’s mental health, the Court accepted her evidence and that of Dr Nigel Strauss, diagnosing exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder and anxiety linked to the dismissal circumstances. While other factors like threats related to her social media posts contributed, the dismissal significantly exacerbated her condition.
Relief Sought by the Plaintiff:
Ms Lattouf sought:
- Declarations that the ABC contravened s 50 (unlawful dismissal) and s 772(1)(f) (adverse action for political opinions) of the FW Act.
- Compensation for non-economic loss due to emotional distress and psychological harm.
- Pecuniary penalties against the ABC for breaches of the FW Act and the Enterprise Agreement.
- An Order requiring the ABC to implement a compliance program regarding clause 55 (later abandoned).
Orders made by the Court
The Court ordered:
- Declarations that the ABC breached sections 50 and 772(1) of the FW Act.
- Compensation of A$70,000 to Ms Lattouf for non-economic loss, acknowledging the distress and humiliation caused by the unlawful dismissal. This was less than the A$100,000 to A$150,000 Ms Lattouf sought.
- Directions for a further hearing to determine whether pecuniary penalties should be imposed under s 546 of the FW Act, and if so, the amount.
Next Steps & Likely Forthcoming Disputes
The case will proceed with a hearing on pecuniary penalties against the ABC, which will consider the seriousness of the breaches and determine appropriate penalties.
We also anticipate the parties will be in dispute over whether the usual presumption that each party bear their own costs in employment disputes should stand or whether one side should bear the other side’s costs.
The Court hearing ran for over 10 days and involved senior legal representatives. The legal costs incurred by each side are likely to run into the many hundreds of thousands and will inevitably dwarf the current judgment sum awarded to Ms Lattouf of A$70,000.
The Court will consider both questions relating to penalties and costs on a date to be set.
Although the compliance program claim was abandoned, issues of systemic compliance or managerial education may resurface in future proceedings or as part of broader remedies.
Appeals on liability, compensation amount, or procedural fairness findings remain possible and could prolong resolution.
In Summary
The judgment in Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation highlights the serious consequences of failing to follow procedurally fair and contractually compliant processes when disciplining or terminating an employee. The Court found that the ABC had unlawfully dismissed Ms Lattouf in part, because of her political opinions, in breach of section 772(1) of the Fair Work Act. The ABC failed to adhere to the disciplinary procedures set out in the applicable Enterprise Agreement. The decision underscores that even in high-profile or politically sensitive contexts, employers must ensure their actions are lawful, measured, and procedurally sound. Furthermore, it also reinforces the protections afforded to employees under the Fair Work Act when expressing their political views.
How can Madison Marcus help?
As a specialist employment law firm, we assist both employees and employers in navigating complex workplace disputes and compliance obligations. For employees, we offer advice and representation in claims related to unfair dismissal, adverse action, and discrimination. We work with clients to strengthen their position and pursue compensation when procedural or legal failures have occurred. For employers, we provide strategic guidance on managing allegations of misconduct, drafting compliant policies, conducting lawful investigations, and implementing fair processes to minimise and circumvent litigation risk. Our customised training programs and supplementary services are tailored for HR and management teams, delivering tangible value by equipping organisations to proactively manage high-risk issues such as political expression and public commentary with clarity, confidence, and compliance with legal standards. Enquire Today.
References
Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (2022). ABC Enterprise Agreement 2022–2025. Retrieved from https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/f69076dc66e236953700983f4b22ebce
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). (2009). Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. Retrieved from https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 50. (2009). Contravening an enterprise agreement. Retrieved from https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s50.html
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 546. (2009). Pecuniary penalty orders. Retrieved from https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s546.html
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 772. (2009). Employment not to be terminated on certain grounds. Retrieved from https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s772.html
Federal Court of Australia. (2025). Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669. Retrieved from https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0669
MM Website Enquiry Form
Form used to capture all MM website enquires. Will be used in Monday and Mailchimp via Zapier
"*" indicates required fields
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the information provided, Madison Marcus Law Firm makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to the content. Readers are advised to seek professional legal advice tailored to their specific circumstances before taking any action based on this information. Madison Marcus Law Firm accepts no liability for any loss or damage incurred as a result of reliance on the information presented herein.
