ABC Argues Host Antoinette Lattouf Was 'Relieved' of Duties, Not Fired
ABC Defends Decision to Remove Antoinette Lattouf
A pro-Palestine presenter taken off air after receiving numerous complaints was not fired but instead "relieved of any obligation to perform any further work," ABC lawyers argued in court.
Antoinette Lattouf was removed after just three days of a week-long fill-in role on ABC Radio Sydney’s Mornings program. The decision followed her sharing a Human Rights Watch post that accused Israel of using starvation as a "weapon of war" in Gaza.
Legal Battle Over Unlawful Dismissal Claims
Lattouf took legal action against the public broadcaster, first in the Fair Work Commission and later escalating the case to the Federal Court, where she is now seeking penalties and damages.
On Friday, ABC’s barrister, Ian Neil SC, denied that Lattouf had been sacked. He argued that, as a casual employee, she had no express right to work and that ABC had the contractual authority to reduce her shifts.
"She was relieved of any obligation to perform any further work," Neil told Justice Darryl Rangiah.
ABC Defends Its Actions as Policy-Based Decision
Neil reiterated that then-chief content officer Chris Oliver-Taylor had removed Lattouf from her remaining shifts because she allegedly breached ABC’s directives. According to the broadcaster, Lattouf had been instructed not to post anything related to the Israel-Gaza conflict on social media—an assertion she denies.
Oliver-Taylor also believed her removal was justified due to a potential violation of ABC’s personal use of social media guidelines. However, Justice Rangiah questioned this reasoning.
"Does that sound like a rather flimsy reason to take the applicant off air, that she may have breached the ABC’s policies or guidelines?" Rangiah asked.
"In context, no," Neil responded.
The barrister insisted that the decision was not meant as a punishment. "Not one person ever on the evidence ever thought (being pulled off air) was a punishment," he claimed.
"What about Ms. Lattouf?" Rangiah countered.
Conflicting Testimonies on Social Media Restrictions
Elizabeth Green, Lattouf’s direct supervisor, testified that she never issued an explicit order but merely advised the presenter to "lay low" on social media.
Neil argued that it didn’t matter whether the instruction was labeled as a directive, request, or advice. "It was a clear communication—don’t do this," he stated.
Lattouf, however, contended that she had negotiated with Green to post objective facts from reputable sources.
Emotional and Financial Consequences
While Neil acknowledged that Lattouf might have felt disappointed about being taken off air early, he claimed she would only be entitled to modest compensation if the court found ABC had acted unlawfully.
ABC, which has spent more than $1.1 million defending the lawsuit, admitted that Lattouf’s existing psychological conditions may have been worsened by the situation. However, it also attributed her distress to the backlash she faced for her advocacy on Palestine and the burden of being a "poster girl" for the cause.
Her legal team argues she deserves greater compensation due to the emotional toll, including the fact that details of her removal were leaked to The Australian newspaper the same day she was taken off air.
Claims of Political and Racial Discrimination
Lattouf claims she was unlawfully dismissed due to her political views and race, further alleging that pro-Israel lobbyists pressured ABC management to remove her.
Neil denied any hostility toward Lattouf, insisting that ABC’s decisions, including its request for her to refrain from posting about Gaza, were intended to protect her.
He also dismissed claims that the case was about political opinion, arguing that Lattouf’s post was not an expression of opinion but rather the sharing of what she believed to be an "incontrovertible fact."
Justice Rangiah has now retired to deliberate on the case.
Stay Updated
Follow for more updates on this case and other key developments in media and politics.
0 Comments