The ABC has been ordered to pay $150,000 in penalties for unlawfully terminating Antoinette Lattouf, after she was taken off air for posting about the conflict between Israel and Gaza.

The Federal Court on Wednesday ordered the ABC to make the payment to Lattouf within 28 days, on top of the previous $70,000 compensation the court ordered in June.

"The ABC's contraventions have caused very significant consequences for Ms Lattouf," Justice Darryl Rangiah said in the decision.

According to the justice, the ABC's conduct in "surrendering to the demands of the pro-Israel lobbyists" and taking Lattouf off air ignored its "important statutory obligation of maintaining independence and integrity".

"The ABC let down the Australian public badly when it abjectly surrendered the rights of its employee Ms Lattouf to appease a lobby group," the justice said.

Posting on X after the decision was handed down, Lattouf said the ABC has spent in excess of $2 million on legal fees for the case.

"The real cost to Aunty is immeasurable," she said on the platform.

Hugh Marks, ABC managing director, said in a statement that ABC acknowledged the Federal Court's decision.

"This matter has been deeply felt at the ABC," Marks said in the statement. "It was not handled in line with our values and expectations and Ms Lattouf, our staff, and the public were let down."

The managing director said they take the matter seriously and have reflected on the lessons learned and their implications.

"I would like to reiterate the ABC's sincere apology to Ms Latouff and wish her all the best in the future," he added.

Unlawful termination by ABC

The penalties come after the Federal Court found in June that the ABC violated the Fair Work Act 2009 and its enterprise agreement after removing Lattouf from a five-day hosting stint for a radio program in December 2023.

Lattouf, at the time, was active on social media and made numerous posts condemning the mass killing of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces in Gaza.

She was removed after reposting a video from Human Rights Watch entitled "The Israeli government is using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza" on Instagram.

In the caption, Lattouf added "HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war."

Rangiah said in June that the ABC contravened the FWA for terminating Lattouf "for reasons including that she held political opinions opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza."

It also breached its enterprise agreement by failing to follow procedures when making an allegation of misconduct against the journalist. This includes failing to provide Lattouf with the opportunity to defend herself before deciding that the allegation of misconduct is substantiated.

On Wednesday, Rangiah said that the ABC's surrender in the face of political pressure means that a penalty of sufficient weight must be imposed to prevent similar instances in the future.

"It is necessary to remind the ABC that, as a public institution, it is required to maintain high standards in its treatment of employees," Rangiah said. "More particularly, it is expected and required to treat its staff in accordance with the requirements of the FWA."

What it means for employers

Writing about implications for employers after the initial decision in June, Persephone Stuckey-Clarke, Partner, and Anna Kunc, Associate, at Dentons said the case has implications for the scope of organisations' policies on social media use and their out-of-hours activities.

"It may no longer be sufficient for employers to rely on breaches of policies governing employees' social media usage and out-of-hours activity, or contractual or statutory duties to act in the best interests of the employer, to justify dismissal for conduct deemed by the employer to be potentially reputationally damaging," they said in an article for HRD.

"The lawfulness and reasonableness of directions given to employees will be heavily scrutinised by courts, particularly when their breach is used to justify termination of employment. Factors such as the nature of the employer's business, an employee's seniority and the social context of the conduct may be relevant to whether such a direction is lawful and reasonable.

"In addition to being lawful and reasonable, directions given to employees must be more forceful than a 'suggestion' or 'advice.'"