Introduction
When the ABC fired Antoinette Lattouf over a social media post criticising Israel, it ignited more than just public debate, it raised the question of how much control an employer may exert over employee political opinions, especially when it spills into the public domain.
In Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669, the Federal Court ruled that the national broadcaster had unlawfully terminated Ms Lattouf’s employment for expressing a political opinion, in breach of section 772(1)(f) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Her offence? Reposting a video during her on-air engagement that accused the Israeli government of using starvation as a weapon of war.
This decision is a wake-up call for employers across all sectors, as brand protection does not justify breaching employee rights. The Court’s ruling underscores that political expression, particularly online and outside work hours, is not just a matter of opinion, but a legally protected attribute. It also sends a clear message that vague “advice” to employees won’t cut it when attempting to enforce reputational risk management.
For employers managing high-profile talent, politically sensitive workplaces, or public-facing brands, Lattouf resets the legal boundaries of control over employee conduct beyond the office.
Key Findings
His Honour Justice Rangiah determined that Ms Lattouf was dismissed because she expressed a political opinion regarding Israel’s conduct in the Gaza conflict. The Court held:
- Expression of political opinion is protected, not just the holding of that opinion (at [607]);
- No lawful or reasonable direction was issued by the ABC not to post about the conflict; and
- ABC’s reliance on reputational risk and internal policy concerns was insufficient to justify dismissal in the face of statutory protections.
As a result, the Court awarded Ms Lattouf $70,000 in compensation for non-economic loss, with pecuniary penalties and costs to be determined.
Implications for Employers
- Political Opinion Is a Legally Protected Attribute
The Court’s interpretation of section 772(1)(f) clarifies that expression of political opinion, especially through personal social media, is protected. Employers may not take adverse action against employees merely because that expression generates controversy, even if the content conflicts with perceived organisational values.
This poses clear challenges for employers with reputational sensitivities, particularly in industries such as media, education, government, and corporate advocacy.
- Managing Brand Risk Has Legal Boundaries
Employers have legitimate interests in protecting brand reputation. However, Lattouf demonstrates that such interests cannot be used to justify termination where the reason for dismissal includes a protected attribute. Where reputational concerns are raised, employers must carefully distinguish between legitimate risk mitigation and unlawful discrimination.
- Lawful and Reasonable Directions Must Be Clear and Enforceable
A key issue in Lattouf was whether Ms Lattouf was directed not to post about the Israel–Palestine conflict. The ABC’s witness conceded she had merely advised caution. Justice Rangiah held this did not amount to a “lawful and reasonable direction” capable of grounding disciplinary action (at [599]).
Employers should ensure that:
- Directions are clearly expressed and documented;
- The legal basis for the direction is sound (e.g. linked to a genuine operational requirement); and
- The direction is proportionate, having regard to the employee’s role, seniority, and the context.
- Policies Alone May Not Justify Termination
While robust policies are essential, Lattouf confirms they do not displace statutory protections. Breach of a code of conduct or social media policy is not, in itself, a defence to a contravention under Part 3-1 or section 772 of the FW Act. Employers should be cautious when invoking policy breaches in disciplinary decisions that may intersect with protected attributes.
Practical Guidance for Employers
In light of Lattouf, employers should:
- Audit social media and conduct policies for clarity, enforceability, and alignment with statutory protections;
- Ensure directions issued to employees are lawful, reasonable, and clearly communicated—preferably in writing;
- Avoid relying solely on reputational risk or stakeholder complaints as a basis for adverse action, especially where protected attributes may be involved;
- Seek legal advice before disciplining employees for out-of-hours conduct that touches on personal beliefs, speech, or political expression.
Employers should also provide training to managers on the scope and limitations of control over employees’ private conduct and political speech, particularly in sectors with heightened public scrutiny.
Further information
Lattouf serves as a timely and consequential reminder that employee rights under the Fair Work Act, particularly around political opinion—cannot be lightly overridden in the name of brand protection. Courts will closely scrutinise the real reasons for dismissal, the nature of any directions given, and the proportionality of employer responses.
While protecting reputation remains a business imperative, employers must now navigate more carefully the legal limits of influencing what employees say and do outside of work.
Please contact us if you wish to discuss and/or require advice on the circumstances in your business.