The recent decision of the Federal Court in Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669 marks a pivotal development in Australian employment law.
In a case that captured national attention, the Court found that the ABC had unlawfully terminated journalist Antoinette Lattouf’s employment for reasons that included her political opinion—specifically, her social media criticism of the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. The judgment not only clarifies the scope of protection under section 772(1)(f) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA) but also reinforces procedural fairness obligations under enterprise agreements.
Key Findings
Justice Rangiah held that:
- The ABC contravened s 772(1)(f) of the FWA by terminating Ms Lattouf’s employment for reasons including her political opinion.
- The ABC also breached s 50 of the FWA by failing to comply with its own Enterprise Agreement, which required it to provide notice and an opportunity to respond to allegations of misconduct.
- Ms Lattouf was awarded $70,000 in compensation, with pecuniary penalties to be determined at a later date.
Clarifying “Political Opinion”
In a significant finding, the Court ruled that “political opinion” in s 772(1)(f) encompasses not only the holding but also the expression of such opinions. This aligns with international labour law norms and reflects the practical reality that adverse employment consequences usually stem from the expression of a belief, not its mere existence.
Importantly, the Court accepted that Ms Lattouf’s public criticisms—such as reposting a Human Rights Watch video accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon—were political in nature. The ABC’s assertion that it dismissed her solely for breaching impartiality guidelines was not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption in s 783.
A Reminder About Procedural Fairness
The Court also found that the ABC failed to follow its own internal disciplinary procedures, as set out in the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2022–2025. Ms Lattouf was not given an opportunity to respond to the alleged breach of editorial policy before her removal from the program. This procedural failure constituted a separate and distinct contravention of the FWA.
Implications for Employers and Media Organisations
This case has wide-ranging implications:
- Public broadcasters and regulated media must tread carefully when reacting to external political pressure, particularly where employee views relate to matters of public concern.
- Casual employees are still entitled to statutory protections against discriminatory terminations—even for short engagements.
- Employers must ensure their reasons for termination do not include protected attributes such as political opinion, race, or national extraction—whether directly or indirectly.
- Procedural fairness, as mandated by enterprise agreements or employment contracts, cannot be sidestepped, even where reputational concerns are in play.
Final Thoughts
Lattouf v ABC will likely become a leading authority on the meaning of “political opinion” in Australian workplace law. For employers, especially those operating in politically sensitive sectors, the message is clear: decisions must be based on lawful, documented grounds and must follow agreed processes. Failure to do so risks serious legal and reputational consequences.
If you're an employer navigating complex termination risks—or an employee concerned about the reasons behind your dismissal—Spurling Legal can help.
Our team advises on employment rights, enterprise agreement compliance, and managing reputational risk in high-stakes environments.
📩 Contact us at spurlinglegal.com.au or connect with Dicky Abraham on LinkedIn to discuss how this decision may affect your business or rights.
