Discipline action against an employee for holding and/or expressing political opinions in light of Lattouf v ABC
Published on July 11, 2025 by Tim Grellman
Employees often wonder whether the public expression of their political views (such as on social media) might impact their employment.
Similarly, employers often wonder whether they can regulate and/or discipline the out of office conduct of employees, particularly if the expression of political opinions might affect the employer’s enterprise.
The Federal Court of Australia recently published its judgment in the much publicised case of Lattouf v ABC. The judgment is a reminder of the complexities that arise when politics and work collide.
The judgment is very long – 177 pages – and this article does not purport to analyse all aspects of it. Instead, I have focused on key takeaways particularly in relation to an employee’s holding and expression of political opinions which is contemplated by section 772 of the Fair Work Act.
Section 772 of the Fair Work Act
Section 772 of the Fair Work Act relevantly provides that an employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for certain reasons including “political opinion.” A key takeaway from Lattouf v ABC is that this protection encompasses not only the holding of a political opinion, but also expressing a political opinion.
Ms Lattouf’s political opinion/expression
Ms Lattouf, who has made numerous social media posts expressing her views about the Israel/Gaza war (War), was employed as a radio presenter for the ABC for five days between 18-22 December 2023.
The Court case centred upon Ms Lattouf’s social media posts regarding the War which were published before and during her employment with the ABC. A major theme of Ms Lattouf’s posts was condemnation of the mass killing of Palestinians by Israeli forces.
While Ms Lattouf’s posts also condemned the killing of Israeli citizens by Hamas, it is fair to say that Ms Lattouf’s posts generally amounted to the expression of political opinion that was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
For example, on 20 December 2023, while an ABC employee, Ms Lattouf reposted a video entitled “The Israeli Government is using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza” and she added the words “Israeli Government is using starvation as a tool of war.”
Within an hour of this post being made, the ABC decided to remove Ms Lattouf from her on-air radio presenting role. She was told she would not be required for her remaining shifts and she was not given the opportunity to defend herself. The Federal Court held that this constituted the end of her employment.
The Federal Court held that the ABC’s reasons for taking this action included that:
- The ABC thought Ms Lattouf engaged in misconduct because she had been advised to not publish social media posts that indicated she was impartial to the War;
- The ABC believed Ms Lattouf had breached the ABC’s policies in respect of the appropriate use of social media; and
- The ABC was concerned it would face accusations of supporting Ms Lattouf’s opinion including because the ABC was aware that The Australian intended to publish a story that was likely to be critical of the ABC’s employment of Ms Lattouf in light of her social media posts.
The Federal Court concluded that each of these reasons were interconnected with Ms Lattouf having expressed her political opinion. Further, the Federal Court was satisfied that Ms Lattouf merely holding these opinions (as opposed to expressing them) formed part of the ABC’s reasoning for terminating her employment, which contravened section 772 of the Fair Work Act.
Additionally, the ABC was found to have breached clause 55.2 of the ABC Enterprise Agreement 2022-2025 which required the ABC to provide Ms Lattouf an opportunity to respond to alleged misconduct before a decision is made as to whether the allegation is substantiated. This constituted a further breach of the Fair Work Act; section 50 prohibits the contravention of an enterprise agreement.
As a result of these findings, the Federal Court made various orders in Ms Lattouf’s favour, including the award of compensation for non-economic loss in the amount of $70,000.
Key takeaways
Various takeaways can be gleaned from Lattouf V ABC. Notably, these include that:
- The termination of an employee’s employment because they hold and/or express a political opinion will likely contravene section 772 of the Fair Work Act. Employees may be awarded damages for contraventions of this nature.
- It is best practice to provide an employee the opportunity to respond to allegations before a decision is made as to whether the allegations are substantiated. A failure to do so will likely constitute a breach of an applicable enterprise agreement. Even if no enterprise agreement applies, the law generally frowns upon failures to afford procedural fairness, including in the unfair dismissal jurisdiction where a relevant consideration is often whether an employee is afforded a chance to respond to alleged misconduct/performance issues/incapacity.
As a general rule, employers are entitled to issue directions to employees that are “lawful and reasonable”. A key question that emerges from Lattouf V ABC is whether it is lawful and/or reasonable for an employer to direct an employee to refrain from expressing their political opinions.
During the case, the ABC argued that it had directed Ms Lattouf not to post anything on social media that would suggest she was not impartial in relation to the War. However, the Federal Court held that Ms Lattouf was merely provided with advice that it would be best to not post anything controversial about the War, and that no actual direction to that effect was issued.
Given the Court’s reasoning, if such a direction is made by an employer, it may be unlawful or unreasonable, but this depends on a case-by-case analysis in relation to specific expressions by an employee. Certainly, there is greater risk for employers who take disciplinary action (such as dismissal) against an employee for expressing their political opinion in light of the Lattouf V ABC judgment.
Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. If you are seeking professional advice on any legal matters, you can contact Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers on 1800 059 278 or via our Contact Page and one of our lawyers will be able to assist you.
