‘Rot’: Tearful Antoinette Lattouf slams ABC

Journalist and presenter Antoinette Lattouf has slammed the ‘rot’ at the ABC outside of court.

A tearful Antoinette Lattouf says that the ABC bowed to external pressure by sacking her, claiming the national broadcaster was in “serious trouble” having let the “rot” and “systemic racism” set in.

Ms Lattouf sued the ABC for unlawful dismissal after she was sent home midway through a five-day casual shift hosting Radio’s Sydney Mornings program in December 2023 following a slew of email complaints about her stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict.

She was sent home – and told she wouldn’t be completing her final two shifts – after she shared a post by Human Rights Watch on Instagram.

The ABC has argued in the Federal Court that Ms Lattouf breached a direction from her manager not to post on social media before she was dumped from the air.

However, her lawyers argue she was given no such direction following her first shift.

The blockbuster trial came to an end on Friday afternoon following closing submissions from both sides, with Justice Darryl Rangiah to hand down his judgment at a to-be-determined later date.

Antoinette Lattouf said the “rot” had set in at the ABC. Picture: NewsWire/Flavio Brancaleone.

‘ROT’

Outside the Federal Court at the conclusion of the hearing on Friday afternoon, Ms Lattouf at times became emotional as she thanked her supporters and spoke of the impact the saga had brought on her.

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant and despite the immense toll this has had on me, I have sought justice because human rights and accountability matter,” Ms Lattouf said, standing alongside her solicitor Josh Bornstein.

She said she had always “deeply cared” for the ABC and as a child had dreamed of hosting her own show on the national broadcaster.

However, she said ABC management and its board had “capitulated” to a “factually inaccurate” and “baseless” email campaign targeting her when they removed her from air.

“It is now glaringly clear to me and millions of Australians that our ABC is in serious trouble,” Ms Lattouf said.

Antoinette Lattouf tearfully thanks her supporters. Picture: NewsWire/Flavio Brancaleone.

She said she had been forced to go to the courts to seek justice.

“The rot and the systemic racism at the ABC has been aired,” she said.

“But now it’s up to all taxpayers to ensure that sunlight doesn’t just expose it, but ignites real and lasting change at our national broadcaster.”

She at times wiped away tears as she thanked her legal team, family and friends, and those that contributed to a GoFundMe for her legal bills, which has so far raised $194,000.

She said there were days when she could “barely get out of bed” but said messages of support had uplifted her.

“This case was never about me, it was never about five days of work. It was about protecting the principals that should matter to all of us,” Ms Lattouf said.

Antoinette Lattouf has sued the ABC for unlawful termination. Picture: NewsWire/Monique Harmer.

LEAKED

The ABC argued that it did not leak the details of Ms Lattouf having been taken off air to The Australian newspaper.

Soon after Ms Lattouf was relieved of her duties on Wednesday, December 20, 2023, a story appeared online saying that she had been sacked.

“There is no evidence upon which it could be found that the ABC had any involvement in the content of that article,” ABC barrister Ian Neil SC said.

“I’m not sure about that,” Justice Darryl Rangiah replied.

“Isn’t that an inference that could be drawn based on the information that was apparently supplied to The Australian.”

However, Mr Neil argued that it could have been leaked by an employee who had gone rogue.

“That information could well have been supplied by somebody who was acting without the authority or knowledge of the ABC,” Mr Neil said.

“We can’t be liable for that.”

Ms Lattouf’s barrister Philip Boncardo told the court on Friday afternoon the ABC “provided intimate details” to the Australian about the “decision making” of Ms Lattouf’s termination.

He said the matter should be taken into consideration when assessing whether Ms Lattouf had suffered non-economic loss.

Antoinette Lattouf with her legal team. Picture: NewsWire/Flavio Brancaleone.

‘WE HAD THE RIGHT TO DO THAT’

Mr Neil has denied that Ms Lattouf was “sacked”.

In his closing arguments, he has argued that according to her contract, the broadcaster was permitted to relieve her of hosting duties for her final two shows.

“Our whole case is that there was no contractual impediment to the ABC telling Ms Lattouf that she was not required to present on the Thursday and the Friday,” Mr Neil told the court on Friday afternoon.

“By making and executing that decision the ABC did not repudiate the contract and didn’t do anything that terminated the contract or the employment relationship.”

He said that Ms Lattouf was merely removed of her obligation to work on Thursday and Friday.

Justice Rangiah pointed out that Ms Lattouf was not just told she wouldn’t be on air, she was asked to leave the building and told she would not perform any work.

“The correct construction was that she was relieved of any obligation to perform any further work,” Mr Neil said.

“We had the right to do that.

“Unless the contract expressly, or by implication, removes that right from us. And this contract did not do that.”

The ABC says it had a right to take her off the air. Picture: NewsWire/Gaye Gerard

‘NUANCED’

The ABC says it’s irrelevant that the ABC reported on the same Human Rights Watch report that was the subject of Ms Lattouf’s Instagram post for which she was stood down.

Ms Lattouf says she was sacked after using Instagram to share a Human Rights Watch post reading “HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war”.

The post added: “The Israeli government is using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza.”

On December 18, 2023, the ABC reported online about the same report under the headline “Human Rights Watch says starvation is being used as ‘a weapon of war’ by the Israeli government”.

“This wasn’t a like-for-like comparison,” Mr Neil told the court on Friday afternoon.

“The ABC had not reposted the Human Rights Watch stories Ms Lattouf had. They had done something much more nuanced and balanced than that.”

Mr Neil said the story also included other pieces of news, including ones that would be considered favourable to the Israel side of the conflict.

He said the ABC report was “not endorsing” the veracity of Human Rights Watch’s allegation “one way or another”.

Ms Lattouf was sent home after three shifts. Picture: Instagram

IMPARTIAL

Mr Neil told the court the national broadcaster was protecting its statutory obligations to impartiality when it took Ms Lattouf off the air.

Mr Neil said it was a “red herring” to suggest Ms Lattouf was sacked because she had broken one of the ABC’s policies or rules.

“The ABC … in its published policies accepted that it had statutory obligations both to be – and also to be seen to be – impartial,” Mr Neil said.

“They made it known to employees that it was expected that they would conduct themselves in a way so as not to compromise the perception of impartiality.

“That position included employees’ conduct out of work.”

He said that allowed the ABC to give Ms Lattouf a direction about what she could post on social media.

The ABC says Ms Lattouf disobeyed a directive. Picture: NewsWire/Jeremy Piper.

RACE

On Thursday, Ms Lattouf’s barrister Oshie Fagir argued that Ms Lattouf’s was sacked because of her race and her opinions.

In his closing submissions to the court on Friday, Mr Neil said Ms Lattouf’s legal team had not pointed to any evidence to prove that “race or national extraction bore in any way on the decision” to send her home.

Her trial has entered its final day. Picture: NewsWire/Flavio Brancaleone

‘THOUGHT POLICE’

Mr Neil also hit back at a claim that Ms Lattouf was viewed by members of the ABC executive as an “activist”.

“A person can hold an opinion without being an advocate or an activist,” Mr Neil told the court.

He said “activist” was “not a pejorative expression”.

He said “employers can’t be the thought police” or sack employees for their political opinions.

However, he said: “An employer is perfectly entitled to say to an employee, ‘I don’t want you going about the workplace buttonholing your fellow workers and thrusting your political opinions upon them’.”

The trial – which has so far cost the ABC $1.1m – has entered its final day with the ABC’s closing submissions

She claims she was sacked because of her race and opinions. Picture: Instagram.

‘DIRECTIVE’

The court has on Friday heard arguments about a key meeting involving Ms Lattouf’s boss, ABC Radio Sydney content director Elizabeth Green, on Wednesday, December 20.

The meeting, which occurred on the day Ms Lattouf was sacked, also involved members of ABC management Ben Latimer, Steve Ahern and Simon Melkman.

Later that day, the ABC’s head of content Chris Oliver-Taylor made the decision to take Ms Lattouf off air, citing her failure to follow a direction not to post to social media about the war.

Ms Green, in her affidavit, says that she told the meeting that she had not given Ms Lattouf any direction about posting online.

“I told the group that I had not given any ‘directive’ to Ms Lattouf,” Ms Green said in her affidavit.

“I explained that I had ‘spoken with’ or ‘had a word with’ Ms Lattouf and advised her against posting on social media while she was presenting Mornings, but that I did not consider my conversation with Ms Lattouf about posting on social media to have been a ‘direction’.”

However, Mr Neil argued there was no difference between a “direction” and “advice”.

Mr Neil further said that the other three people in the meeting, in their evidence to the court, could not recall Ms Green having said that.

“Everyone else, to whom she says she said it … effectively challenged they didn’t hear her say it,” Mr Neil said.

Justice Rangiah argued the witnesses had merely said “they can’t recall her saying it” as opposed to she did not say it.

However Mr Neil argued: “If she had said it, it’s something they would have remembered.”

Ms Lattouf was taken off air for her final two shifts. Picture: NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard

‘DON’T DO THIS’

Mr Neil on Friday morning told the court that Ms Lattouf was “taken off air because she did something she was told not to do”.

“What was that?” Justice Rangiah asked.

“Not to post anything about the conflict in Israel and Gaza during the week, the five days that she was with the ABC,” Mr Neil replied.

The court has been told that Ms Lattouf had a conversation with Ms Green following her first shift on air on Monday, December 18, 2023.

Mr Neil said: “One of the things she said to Ms Lattouf … ‘I did reiterate that the issue was her continuing to post on social media, which is something I had asked her not to do, whilst on air’.”

However, Justice Rangiah pointed to Ms Green’s affidavit in which she said that she came to an agreement with Ms Lattouf that she could post from “verified sources”.

In her affidavit, Ms Green said she told Ms Lattouf it would be: “best if you don’t post anything related to the Israel/Palestine situation on social media whilst you’re with us.”

Ms Green says that Ms Lattouf pushed back against the suggestion and asked if she could post: “completely factual information from reputable sources, like an Amnesty International report”.

Ms Green said she was further said: “If something is fact based and from a verified source I am sure it would be fine, but best not to post anything that would be considered controversial while you’re with us.”

Mr Neil said: “It was a clear communication, ‘don’t do this’.”

Elizabeth Green was Ms Lattouf’s boss. Picture: NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard

‘HURDLE OF HER OWN CONSTRUCTION’

Mr Neil started his closing submissions by setting out what the case is not about.

“It’s not a case about discrimination,” Mr Neil told the court.

He further added the case was not about “differential treatment”, “bespoke directions”, “impartiality” or “unfair dismissal”.

Mr Neil argued that the case would “fall at a hurdle of her own construction” if it was found that Ms Lattouf was dismissed as a result of her Instagram post.

Mr Neil said during her evidence, Ms Lattouf argued “the contents of that story were an incontrovertible fact, not an opinion at all”.

A social media post sacked ABC presenter Antoinette Lattouf shared on her Instagram account.

‘PRETEXT’

Mr Fagir on Thursday told the court that ABC managing director David Anderson and Mr Oliver-Taylor made the decision to sack Ms Lattouf.

He further argued that then ABC chair Ita Buttrose and head of audio content Ben Latimer were also influential in the decision.

He pointed to an email sent by Mr Oliver-Taylor to Ms Buttrose in which he said the ABC had been “left in an untenable position”.

He said at the time Ms Buttrose was “hammering” Mr Oliver-Taylor with emails and demanding assurances, as The Australian newspaper was asking questions about Ms Lattouf’s employment.

He said Mr Oliver-Taylor then used Ms Lattouf’s social media post as an excuse to get rid of her.

“It’s in the context of that influence and pressure being exerted by the managing director and the chair, this issue materialises and he uses that as a pretext to deliver what he wanted and what the organisations wanted,” Mr Fagir said.

The ABC argues that Ms Lattouf was not sacked but rather her employment ended at the conclusion of her five-day contract.

Former ABC chair Ita Buttrose described Ms Lattouf as an ‘activist’. Picture: NewsWire/Nikki Short

‘ACTIVIST’

Ms Lattouf’s lawyers have argued the ABC failed to follow the terms of its enterprise agreement when Ms Lattouf was sent home.

Under the agreement, any person who is alleged to have committed serious misconduct must be notified in person.

Her lawyers argue it was a “clear example” of termination, noting she was employed as a content creator and taken from the air for her final two shifts.

During her evidence to the court earlier this month, Ms Buttrose described Ms Lattouf as an “activist” owing to her pro-Palestinian posts on social media.

Ms Lattouf’s lawyers have highlighted similarly politically charged and partisan messages expressed by other ABC personalities, including Laura Tingle, who last year told a writers festival: “We are a racist country, let’s face it.”

Mr Fagir argued that labelling her an activist was proof Ms Buttrose had an existing hostility to Ms Lattouf’s political opinion.

“Whenever it’s suggested that Ms Lattouf is an activist or an advocate, and the label is not applied to Ms Tingle, Ms (Patricia) Karvelas, that involved a judgment on the relative merits of the opinion,” Mr Fagir said.

“The fact that Ms Lattouf’s opinions are labelled controversial and contentious, and she is labelled an activist or an advocate, itself is an indication of a prior hostility to the opinions which she holds.”

Originally published as ‘Rot’: Tearful Antoinette Lattouf slams ABC