Lattouf Says ABC Termination Case Reveals ‘Systemic Racism and Rot’ at Broadcaster

• Feb 28, 2025

ABC Proposes ‘Modest’ Compensation in Closing Submissions if It Loses High-Stakes Legal Battle

Antoinette Lattouf has declared her legal fight against the ABC has exposed “the systemic racism and rot at the heart” of the national broadcaster.

Speaking outside Sydney’s federal court after the conclusion of her case, Lattouf described the ordeal as “the most difficult” of her life.

In its final submissions, the ABC suggested that if it were found to have unlawfully terminated Lattouf, any compensation should be “modest.” While the broadcaster acknowledged her dismissal contributed to the psychological distress at the center of her claim, it argued there was no evidence it had been aware of any pre-existing mental health conditions.

Lattouf, who was removed from air three days into a five-day casual contract in December 2023, told the court she has since suffered paranoia, sleeplessness, and increased alcohol consumption.

ABC’s barrister, Ian Neil SC, did not argue against compensation entirely but maintained that the broadcaster’s lack of prior knowledge of any psychological condition should limit the damages.

However, Lattouf’s legal team strongly opposed this stance. Her barrister, Oshie Fagir, labeled the ABC’s defense as “objectionable,” citing its approach to cross-examining Lattouf. He indicated that if she won the case, he would seek additional compensation as a penalty.

“There are many aspects of the ABC’s case which are objectionable,” Fagir said. “That’s a matter we will deal with if and when we come to a penalty phase.”

Speaking outside court, Lattouf reiterated her belief that her case had shone a light on deeper problems within the ABC. “I have done what I set out to do, and now it’s in the court’s hands. The systemic racism and rot at the ABC have been aired.”

ABC Denies Wrongdoing, Claims Removal Was Not Discriminatory

Wrapping up its case, Neil argued that Lattouf’s distress was due to multiple factors, including her role as a high-profile advocate. “The burden of being a poster girl for justice, humanity, and a free and fair press; the adverse consequences of attracting attention as an activist for one perspective of a hotly controversial issue,” he said, were among the reasons for her psychological struggles.

Neil also dismissed claims that Lattouf had been discriminated against, stating that her removal was a decision made to “protect the ABC” and was unrelated to race or political opinion.

“She was relieved of the obligation to perform any further work,” he said. “We have the right to do that. There was no express right for Ms. Lattouf to actually perform work.”

According to Neil, this was not a case about discrimination or unfair treatment but rather a contractual decision.

Disputed Social Media Directive and Internal Communications

A key issue in the case revolved around whether Lattouf had been explicitly told not to post on social media about the Israel-Gaza conflict. Her line manager, Elizabeth Green, testified that she had not issued such a directive, a claim the ABC sought to discredit.

Neil argued that top ABC managers had acted under the belief that Lattouf had been given a directive not to post. He referenced a text message from ABC’s chief content officer, Chris Oliver-Taylor, to managing director David Anderson, sent minutes after a key meeting about Lattouf’s future.

The message stated: “Confirming my view that she has breached our editorial policies whilst in our employment. She also failed to follow a direction from her manager not to post anything whilst working with the ABC. As a result of this, I have no option but to stand her down.”

Neil questioned why Oliver-Taylor would have misrepresented the situation in a message to his superior if Green had, in fact, stated that no such directive had been given.

The HRW Post and ABC’s Editorial Standards

The ABC maintained that Lattouf was removed due to her decision to share a Human Rights Watch (HRW) post accusing Israel of using starvation as a “weapon of war” in Gaza. Neil argued that this was not comparable to the ABC’s own reporting on the HRW findings.

“This wasn’t a like-for-like comparison,” he said. “The ABC had not simply reposted the Human Rights Watch story as Ms. Lattouf had done. They had done something much more nuanced and balanced than that.”

Neil insisted that Lattouf’s dismissal was purely about editorial standards, not discrimination or political bias.

Awaiting Judgment

The case has now concluded, with Justice Darryl Rangiah expected to deliver a ruling at a later date.