Antoinette Lattouf, a presenter on ABC Radio Sydney’s Mornings program, was removed from her role just three days into her fill-in assignment after sharing a post from Human Rights Watch that alleged Israel was using starvation as a “weapon of war” in Gaza. Following her dismissal, Lattouf challenged ABC’s decision in the Fair Work Commission and subsequently escalated her case to the Federal Court, seeking damages and penalties.
In court, ABC’s barrister, Ian Neil SC, clarified that Lattouf had not been sacked but “relieved of any obligation to perform any further work” due to her status as a casual employee, which did not guarantee a continuous workload. Lattouf’s removal was attributed to a perceived breach of organisational direction regarding her social media activity during sensitive global events, particularly relating to the Israel-Gaza conflict. Neil argued that this decision, made by then-chief content officer Chris Oliver-Taylor, stemmed from concerns over her potentially violating the ABC’s social media guidelines. However, Lattouf contested this, claiming no explicit directive had been given.
During the proceedings, Justice Darryl Rangiah questioned whether the rationale for her removal was substantial enough to warrant such an action. Neil maintained that Oliver-Taylor’s intention was not to punish Lattouf but rather protect her, citing that no one at the organisation viewed her removal as disciplinary. Yet, contrary to this view, Lattouf expressed her disappointment over the decision and contended it might have exacerbated her existing psychological conditions.
Lattouf’s legal team sought higher compensation, arguing her distress was heightened by a leak to the media regarding her dismissal, which occurred on the same day she was taken off air. She argued that her removal was unlawful and linked to her race and political opinions, claiming she was subjected to pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists who had inundated ABC leadership with complaints.
ABC, which has reportedly spent over $1.1 million defending the case, asserts that mitigating measures were implemented to safeguard Lattouf’s wellbeing. Neil also emphasised that the incident was not grounded in political bias, challenging the notion that her social media post constituted an expression of political viewpoint.
Justice Rangiah has now adjourned to deliberate further on the matter.