A Federal Court has found that the national broadcaster unlawfully dismissed journalist Antoinette Lattouf in December 2023. The decision followed her repost of a Human Rights Watch statement about Gaza on social media.
Justice Darryl Rangiah ruled that the dismissal was partly due to Lattouf’s political opinion, which included criticism of the Israeli military operation in Gaza. The court found this action breached Australia’s Fair Work Act.
Justice Rangiah confirmed that section 772(1) of the Act had been violated. He stated that Lattouf’s termination was connected to her political stance on the Gaza conflict.
Lattouf, a media professional with extensive experience, was contracted for a short-term role with the broadcaster in December 2023. She began hosting a morning radio program on Monday, 18 December. The day after starting, she reshared a Human Rights Watch post. The post alleged that the Israeli military was using starvation as a weapon in Gaza.
Following this repost, Lattouf was informed on Wednesday that she would not be needed for the last two days of her scheduled five-day assignment.
She later filed legal action, arguing that her dismissal was due to her political beliefs and ethnic background. She also claimed the broadcaster failed to follow the correct termination procedures set out in its enterprise agreement.
In response, the broadcaster argued that her short-term role simply came to a natural end. It denied that she had been “dismissed” and said her time with them ended due to the expiry of the agreement. The broadcaster rejected suggestions that race or political opinion played a role in the decision.
However, Justice Rangiah found that political views were a factor in her termination. He also clarified that Lattouf had not been given instructions to stay away from commentary about the conflict. The judge stated that Oliver Taylor, Head of Radio, was aware of this when the decision was made.
The Federal Court awarded Lattouf $70,000 for non-economic loss. This includes distress, hurt, and humiliation caused by the unlawful dismissal. The amount is based on the impact on her reputation and personal wellbeing rather than lost income.
The court did not find evidence that race or national background influenced the decision. These parts of her claim were dismissed.
The case gained public attention because of its potential effect on freedom of speech, editorial policies, and the duty of public media. It also sparked debate about how far a journalist’s personal views can be shared online, especially during temporary roles.
The Fair Work Commission had earlier concluded that Lattouf had indeed been dismissed, allowing the matter to proceed to the Federal Court. This was a key moment in validating her right to challenge the broadcaster’s actions.
Legal experts say the ruling may set a precedent for other journalists in Australia, especially those working under short-term contracts. It raises fresh questions about social media conduct, freedom of opinion, and employer obligations under the Fair Work Act.
This case has also brought to light the high costs of legal battles over employment rights. The broadcaster has reportedly spent over $1 million in legal fees during the process.
Lattouf’s dismissal and the court’s findings may influence how other media organisations handle similar situations in the future. For journalists and broadcasters, the decision adds new clarity around the limits and protections of expressing political opinions—particularly when those views touch on controversial global events.
While the court supported Lattouf’s claim regarding political opinion, it stopped short of backing the argument on racial discrimination. Nonetheless, the compensation she received underlines the seriousness of the breach found by the court.
This ruling also serves as a warning to publicly funded organisations to respect employees’ legal rights, even in short-term roles. Employers are reminded to provide clear guidelines about social media use and personal expression when those topics intersect with sensitive global issues.
The outcome reinforces legal protections for workers who express political beliefs, even in highly sensitive and divisive contexts.