Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 17 May 2026
Key facts
- The post was made in a closed group of approximately 30 people
- The employer was not named in the post
- There was no evidence of actual reputational damage to the employer
- The investigation interviewed only the claimant
- The claimant had no previous disciplinary record
Timeline
-
Facebook comment posted
After a difficult shift, the claimant posted in a private group of 30 friends a comment criticising "the management" for understaffing. She did not name the employer or any colleague.
-
Screenshot reaches HR
A friend's friend in the group took a screenshot and forwarded it to a manager at the care home.
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended on full pay pending investigation. The suspension letter alleged she had brought the company into disrepute.
-
Investigation interview
The investigating manager interviewed only the claimant. No one from the Facebook group was contacted; the screenshot was treated as the entirety of the evidence.
-
Disciplinary hearing
The hearing lasted 40 minutes. The claimant apologised and removed the post. The chair concluded the post amounted to gross misconduct and dismissed her summarily.
-
Appeal dismissed
The appeal was heard by a director who upheld the original decision in a one-page letter.
-
Tribunal judgment
The dismissal was found unfair on both substantive and procedural grounds, but compensation was reduced by 25% for contributory conduct.
The legal issue
Whether summary dismissal for a private social media post that did not name the employer fell within the range of reasonable responses, and whether the investigation was sufficient to satisfy the Burchell test.
The outcome
The tribunal applied the Burchell test (BHS v Burchell 1978) for misconduct dismissals: did the employer have a genuine belief, on reasonable grounds, after reasonable investigation, that the employee was guilty? On the third limb the investigation failed — no attempt was made to interview anyone else from the group or to understand the wider context.
Substantively, summary dismissal for a private comment that did not identify the employer was found to be outside the range of reasonable responses for an employee of four years' standing with a clean record. A written warning would have been within range; dismissal was not.
The tribunal made a 25% deduction for contributory conduct on the basis that posting the comment was unwise and the claimant should have foreseen the risk. A further 15% Polkey deduction reflected the possibility that, with a proper process, a final written warning could still have damaged her future progression.
Final compensation: £9,870 (basic award £2,640 plus compensatory award of £7,230 after deductions).
Lessons & takeaways
- Private social media posts are rarely as private as people think — but employers still have to investigate the actual reach and impact, not assume them.
- The Burchell investigation standard requires more than interviewing only the accused. Witnesses, context, and platform reach all matter.
- Even when a dismissal is unfair, an award can be reduced significantly for contributory conduct and for Polkey (chance the dismissal would have happened anyway).
- Length of service and clean disciplinary record push the "range of reasonable responses" away from summary dismissal for a first offence.
Why this case matters
Social media misconduct cases are one of the fastest-growing areas of unfair dismissal litigation. They almost always come down to the same three questions:
- How widely was the post actually visible?
- Was the employer identifiable from the post itself?
- Is there evidence of actual reputational damage, or just employer worry about hypothetical damage?
Here, the answers were "30 people," "no," and "no" — and the tribunal said that gross misconduct dismissal was a step too far. A final written warning would have been defensible. Walking the person out of the building was not.
The Polkey and contributory conduct deductions
This case is also a good illustration of how compensation can shrink even when you win. The tribunal accepted the dismissal was unfair, but:
- Deducted 25% from the compensatory award for contributory conduct (the claimant's own behaviour contributed to the situation)
- Deducted a further 15% for Polkey (the chance she could still have been disciplined and damaged her career even with a fair process)
So a notionally larger award was whittled down to under £10,000. That's a common pattern in social media cases — winning is one thing; winning big is another.