The Lattouf v ABC case is the latest in a series of conflicts between employers and employees over the right to express personal views and meet employment obligations. At stake are some important questions. Can a complaint that tests a breach of workplace policy against a claim of discrimination be adequately dealt with under current employment laws? How can workplace policies also allow employees the right to hold and express their own views and values, especially in relation to the rights of journalists?

Ultimately, these questions need to be tested if we are to find a way forward in reconciling the polarised positions in these increasingly common clashes. For that reason, let’s hope that Antoinette Lattouf has the staying power not to settle, as other high-profile claimants have done.

The ABC argues it took action against Lattouf not on the basis of her race but because, after being told not to post anything contentious, she breached the ABC’s social media guidelines by posting a Human Rights Watch report on Israel’s alleged use of starvation as a tool of war in Gaza. It has also raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing it did not actually terminate Lattouf’s employment in the first place.

The social media guidelines require employees using personal social media to, among other things, “not damage the ABC’s reputation for impartiality and independence”, “not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute”, and “not imply ABC endorsement of your personal views”.

Most modern employers have similar workplace policies and codes of conduct in place, particularly where their employees are public figures. If an employee says or does anything controversial, in their own time, and it is shared on social media, they can be dismissed depending on the policy and nature of the breach.

Loading

These policies have been relied on in other recent notable cases, including Israel Folau’s sacking by Rugby Australia, and that of SBS journalist Scott McIntyre over his controversial tweets about Anzac Day in 2015. Both these matters were settled by the parties, leaving important questions unanswered. However, court and tribunal rulings in Australia have consistently supported employers in seeking to enforce such policies, where the employer establishes a legitimate interest in regulating employees’ private conduct.

Lattouf has commenced proceedings against the ABC under section 772 of the Fair Work Act, which provides that an employer must not terminate an employee’s employment on a range of discriminatory grounds, including race, religion and political opinion. She will argue that even if the ABC can establish a breach of the social media policy that justified termination, nonetheless, the termination was in breach of section 772 on the grounds of political opinion or race.

The same argument was raised in Folau’s case. He claimed Rugby Australia’s workplace policies prohibited him from sharing religious information, thereby discriminating against him on religious or political grounds. Since Folau’s matter was settled, we didn’t get a ruling on how far these protections might extend.