Veteran Nine presenter Amber Sherlock’s shock sacking weeks before her 50th birthday has ignited a landmark legal battle over whether Australia’s TV networks are quietly “aging out” women from prime-time screens
For nearly two decades, Amber Sherlock was a familiar presence in Sydney lounge rooms: a steady, on-brand face of Nine’s 6pm News, whose profile survived everything from the nightly bulletin grind to the viral “JacketGate” storm. Now her departure from the network, just weeks shy of her 50th birthday, has become a test case for how Australian television treats women as they age.
At the heart of Sherlock’s claim is a simple, incendiary allegation: that in an industry still comfortable with male anchors in their 60s and 70s, she was quietly deemed too old to front the weather at 49.
Sherlock has launched legal action in the Federal Court, alleging unlawful dismissal and a breach of “general protections” under workplace law. In parallel filings in the Federal Circuit Court, she claims that Nine’s decision to make her redundant in November 2025 – and not redeploy her – was driven by “a hybrid combination” of age and sex.
In short, Sherlock claims that she was removed because she was an “almost 50-year-old woman.” Nine, facing scrutiny on several fronts, emphatically denies it.
A redundancy – or something more?
On Nine’s version, this is a straightforward restructuring story. As part of a $100 million cost-cutting push across its broadcast and streaming operations, the network axed around 50 roles in November.
Among them, Nine says, was the dedicated role of the 6pm weather presenter for 9News Sydney, which it maintains is no longer required. The weather, the company argues, is now being presented by a rotation of existing reporters and presenters who also fulfil other duties across the newsroom.
Sherlock’s account is much less clinical. She says that just a few months before the cuts, she met then-head of news Fiona Dear at a café in Nine’s North Sydney headquarters and was given explicit reassurance about her job security as the network chased savings.
According to Sherlock’s court documents, she was told words to the effect of: “You’ll be here forever, we’ll wheel you and Pete [Overton] out of here.” That kind of language – if the court accepts she was given that assurance – will loom large when a judge weighs whether her redundancy was genuinely about role elimination or whether she was singled out.
By 10 November, Sherlock says the tone had shifted. She alleges Nine Sydney news director Michael Best informed her that her role was redundant. A letter, she claims, indicated the company would explore redeployment options. She expressed interest in three vacant NSW-based journalist positions.
Two days later, she says, she was told there were no redeployment prospects in the Sydney newsroom.
Sherlock alleges those roles – and the core of her on-air duties – ultimately went to three women in their 30s: Maggie Raworth, Kate Creedon and Sophie Walsh. Her legal documents contend that Nine’s decision “to redeploy the individuals identified” was taken because each was at least ten years younger than her, while she, nearing 50, was cut loose.
Nine insists there is nothing discriminatory about any of this. It points not only to the structural change but to its roster of older female talent: Tracy Grimshaw, Deborah Knight, Tara Brown and Belinda Russell among those the company cites as evidence that age is not a barrier for women at the network. In other words: if we employ high-profile women in their 50s and beyond, how can ageism be the motive?
That is precisely what the court will have to untangle.
The legal stakes: what “general protections” really means
Sherlock’s case is framed as a “general protections” claim rather than a simple unfair dismissal. That’s significant. Under the Fair Work Act, general protections provisions are designed to stop employers from taking “adverse action” against someone because they exercised a workplace right or because of protected attributes like age, sex, race or religion.
In practice, that means Sherlock doesn’t have to prove that age and gender were the only reasons for her sacking – only that they were a substantial and operative factor. If she can convince the court that her age and sex played a meaningful role in the decision not to redeploy her, the onus shifts heavily onto Nine to show that its reasons were entirely lawful.
She is seeking $293,154 for economic loss, $100,000 in general damages for harm to her reputation and career, and $30,000 for every proven breach of the Fair Work Act, with the court to determine how many contraventions occurred.
Beyond the dollars, a finding that a marquee media employer unlawfully discriminated against a female presenter because she was nearly 50 would reverberate across the industry.
‘I always joked Nine wouldn’t have a 50-year-old weather presenter’
Publicly, Sherlock has been unusually candid about what she believes is really going on.
On News Corp’s Stellar podcast, she recalled a running joke that now feels grimly pointed: “I always joked that Channel Nine wouldn’t have a 50-year-old weather presenter. Who knew I was being prophetic in that?” Pressed on whether she believed her age was a factor in her redundancy, she did not hedge: “One hundred per cent. Yes, I honestly do.”
She dismisses the idea that this was driven primarily by cost. “I wasn’t on the huge salaries that perhaps some of the stars were making,” she said, arguing that the presenters now stepping into the weather slot are typically “10 to 15 years younger” than she is.
Her broader critique lands well beyond her own situation. Sherlock points to a systemic pattern in Australian TV where older men remain visible long after their female peers disappear from prime camera-facing roles.
“In the newsroom, we have men in their 60s and 70s, and we certainly don’t have any women in their 60s and 70s,” she said. “Even though we’ve come so far, there aren’t that many women over 50 in full-time camera-facing roles on Australian TV.”
By contrast, the UK and US routinely keep women in their 60s, 70s and even 80s in prominent on-air positions. The implication is clear: this isn’t an immutable law of audiences or ratings; it’s a choice made by local management and programmers.
From a corporate perspective, Nine’s defence will rest on two pillars: that it eliminated a standalone role as part of a legitimate restructure, and that it continues to employ and promote older women in significant positions, undermining any inference of systemic ageism.
But even if the company ultimately succeeds in court, there is a separate question about optics and culture that won’t be resolved by a judgment alone.
