AIBU to think public racist / anti immigrant / anti trans posts can justify dismissal?

[Slightyamusedandsilly]

Read a couple of accounts this week of racist, public supporters of the far-right being sacked for spouting race / immigrant / trans hate on their personal social media accounts.

One was a doctors receptionist.
The other a school learning support assistant.

Both roles where they are likely to work with people in the groups they're publicly trashing online. One was recorded at a far-right rally, speaking about the amount of immigrants she was forced to support in her line of work.

What is your opinion on this?

YABU - People should be able to express their opinion without fear of losing their job. Freedom of speech.

YANBU - Anyone with any kind of public facing role/a role where their employer is likely disapprove of this should not publicly post this way and needs to understand that being sacked is their own fault.

Quite.

He should but the Uni are waiting for the outcome from his arrest. Wimps.

If the service provider needs to portray itself as inclusive of certain demographics in order to carry out its service, posting in a way that belies that, if the account makes clear you're an employee, is damaging to the business, and causes repurational damage, so potentially is a fair reason for dismissal.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's a C&T of employment issue and many employers would have terms about bringing the organisation/business into disrepute.

Absolutely agree and these conditions should be part of an employment contract.

What about someone that is vocally anti women's rights on social media? I think it is unfair to group these three together. Are we saying those in employment shouldn't share opinions on social media at all or are they ok to share opinions if you agree with them?

Freedom of speech is limited not absolute. Incitement to violence is already illegal and it's quite right that it is criminal.and people should absolutely lose their jobs if they have done this. If hateful public speech falls short of criminal as not calling for violence then certainly it is reasonable for employers to start disciplinary procedures under any employment contract clause about "bringing the organisation into d8srepute" which is usually in someone's contract if they are in a position to publicly represent the organisation, and for that purpose statements made on personal social media would count too.

Any such disciplinary procedure would not be an instant sacking - it would require evidence to be examined and a chance to defend oneself, and potentially a final written warning. Not everything that might be considered "hateful" by one person would be universally agreed to be hateful though. For example, there are some people who would define the words "nobody can ever change sex, sex is different from gender and you can change gender but you can't change sex" to be hateful, other people would say it isn't, and this is a view that has already been found in a court of law to be a legitimate position that is worthy of respect in a democratic society so you definitely can't have people being sacked for something that one person considers "hate speech" without a formal process to establish whether what they said was actually unacceptable, or whether the accuser may in some cases be using their own definitions that do not give space for other legitimate opinions. Other examples might include someone conflating legitimate criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism etc.

Yes. I can't imagine what would possess any employer to want this man associated with their business.

Put it this way - if, in the pre-internet world, you had taken out an ad in a newspaper detailing how much you hate Jews or gays or whatever, would you have kept your job?

Because that’s exactly what you are doing when you post online in a public forum.

A lot of employers have social media policies these days, it's not exactly difficult for people to keep their extremist views to themselves.

However some people struggle for some reason.

Yes, they often are, with lots of places having SM policies for staff. If there is no policy, it would weaken their case a little if the employee tried to claim unfair dismissal.

'Bringing the organisation into disrepute' is a very woolly area and very subjective.

Unless there is a provable material and/or financial harm to the organisation I think individuals are unlikely to have genuinely achieved this.

Instead I think it allows bullying of individuals with opinions that are non mainstream - in the same way people with non mainstream beliefs, sexual orientation or even accent have been bullied.

So it allows powerful members of organisations/workplaces to dictate what is allowed to be expressed within it (and also outside)

I think it hinges on whether your social media accounts reputationally damage your employer. See Higgs v Farmors School where dismissal was ruled as disproportionate. https://www.pumpcourtchambers.com/case-summary-kristie-higgs-v-farmors-school-2025-ewca-civ-109/

Exactly. Many trans rights activists are misogynistic in the extreme. Should they also lose their jobs?

A clear lack of judgement is surely something employers wouldn't want to be accommodating in their employees. How can anyone be so stupid as to display their company name on their SM accounts and post a load of hate? I saw a trainee solicitor do exactly that and I put the fear of God into him. He soon deleted his vile tweet.

Just to note this went all the way up to the Court of Appeal so it sets a legal precedent and is frequently now cited in similar cases.

Well we don't know what happened in this case or how the posts came to the employers attention. Often it's due to a complaint from the public, which is reputational damage. I agree its not an easy one for an employer to defend though, unless they have very robust SM policies.

Exactly and this is what happened in Higgs v Farmors School - the sacking was found to be disproportionate by the Court of Appeal.

I listened to the learning support woman's anti immigrant speech. It was active hate. Fair enough, have the opinion. But it's her job to support children. How can she support them (her job) when she clearly hates a fair proportion of them?

Same with the GP receptionist. She has active and public hate posts (I've seen them) on her very open, public social media. How can she represent the GP when she is racist / has active dislike for immigrants and maybe trans people who she will have to deal with as part of her role at the surgery.

I think it's one thing if you're self employed or have a non-customer facing job. But if part of your job is to support or help the groups you're publicly coming out against, surely you aren't capable of adequately doing your job?

Yes, he should.

They will all have social media policies and will know what they can and can’t post.

Fair enough. You’re ok with misgendering in his case, I’m surprised.

For the learning support assistant, there will be a SM policy. Schools are hot on that.

Less sure about the GP receptionist. Although I'm sure the health service have very similar policies to education.

I'm not comfortable with employers dictating what i can say in my personal life.

It smacks of ownership. They don't own me. They pay me to do a specific job.

They don't own my opinions and they should not be able to dictate them outside the workplace.

I have had to say this to people I know irl who have professional, public facing jobs like doctors. They are much more left leaning but they repost some very dicey things on their social media. If they get caught and get fired, I will feel sorry for them, but it will still be their own fault

There should definitely be an investigation if the report comes from customers or other staff and the posts are genuinely problematic rather than simply expressing protected beliefs. But dismissal is not always going to be considered proportionate by the courts, it depends on the circumstances.