Social Media Law – Work, Home & Social Media

Jan 22, 2015

Written By Billy Sexton, Editor, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

A Clifford Chance trainee solicitor made news earlier this week by apologising for posting a video on YouTube, which showed him giving his controversial opinion on the Charlie Hebdo Paris attacks. Aysh Chaudhry, said in making the video he “had no had no intention other than to encourage intellectual debate and would never support or condone violence.”

Uh-oh. Your first thoughts after hearing about this must have been “well, he’s been fired, LOL.” Rather, Clifford Chance appear to have taken no action against Chaudhry, saying that his future at the firm remains confidential and “The views expressed in this video are personal and not those of Clifford Chance… We ask our people at all times to consider how their personal conduct and actions may affect those around them, their professional reputation and that of the firm.”

The laws surrounding social media and the link between personal and professional opinions are blurry to say the very least. Ever since a woman was infamously sacked because of a Facebook post in 2009, social media law in relation to employment has developed, but a few notable cases arguably reveal the inconsistencies and difficulties of this area of law.

Taggart v Teletech

In this case, an employee made vulgar comments about the sexual promiscuity of a colleague, refused to remove these comments. This was viewed as bullying and harassment and Taggart was dismissed for gross misconduct. Taggart attempted to assert a right to privacy, but it was deemed that he abandoned his right to consider the comments private when he posted them on Facebook – despite the subject of his comments not being able to see the posts.

Young v Argos

In this case, Young was dismissed for gross misconduct too, after liking a comment that described their manager “as about as much use as a ‘chocolate teapot’”, saying that this was the worst of their 15 years at the company and that they were glad their colleague had “escaped”.

However, unlike Taggart v Teletech, an employment tribunal ruled that Young had been unfairly dismissed and her comments were deemed no more than office gossip or routine criticism of the employer.

The key difference in these cases is that Taggart’s comments were personal, whereas Young’s comments were purely about work. But what about when comments are made that are unrelated to work or colleagues, but the employer’s reputation is brought into question?

Chaudhry v Clifford Chance?

This case is a tough one, because notable cases on the matter show the employee to have brought into question the employers reputation. For example, in Weeks v Everything Everywhere (EE), Weeks described his work as “Dante’s Inferno”, breaching the company’s social media policy that required the employee not to criticise the company in their own time. Weeks was dismissed for gross misconduct.

There is clearly an importance attached on a connection to work and the impact of an employee’s actions on the employer. However, Chaudhry posted the video in his own time, on his own computer and did not mention his employer. It was the subsequent media coverage that linked Chaudhry to his role as a trainee at Clifford Chance. It’s safe to say that Chaudhry didn’t “consider how… personal conduct… may affect… professional reputation and that of the firm”, but does this mean that Chaudhry, having promptly taken the video down, should be dismissed?

Bear in mind, Clifford Chance previously dismissed a trainee for being caught on camera saying that being a “City lad” is “just basically f***ing people over for money”, without referencing his place employer. Do Chaudhry’s actions warrant the same outcome?

Blog