Was an employer liable for an employee’s offensive Facebook posts?

At our recent employment law update workshops we talked about the case law on vicarious liability, which is where an employer is held liable for the actions of its employees if those actions are ‘in the course of employment’. Many of the recent vicarious liability cases involve liability for personal injury, although the same principles apply to employment claims.

The recent case of Forbes v LHR Airport was an employment claim – in particular, a complaint of race discrimination.

The facts

Mr Forbes worked as a security officer at Heathrow Airport. His colleagues included B and S. S shared an image of a golliwog on her Facebook page, saying “Let’s see how far he can travel before Facebook takes him off.” Mr Forbes was not friends on Facebook with S, so did not see the post initially, but did so subsequently when B showed it to him. Mr Forbes then complained to his line manager, and the complaint became a formal grievance.

As a result, disciplinary action was taken against S. She apologised and was given a final written warning. However, Mr Forbes was unhappy about being expected to work with S, and ultimately ended up bringing a claim for harassment against LHR Airport on the basis that it was vicariously liable for S’s actions. An Employment Tribunal found LHR was not vicariously liable, so Mr Forbes submitted an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

What was the EAT’s view?

A key question for the EAT was whether the Facebook post had been ‘in the course of employment‘ when it was posted by S.

They agreed with the Tribunal’s conclusion that most ordinary people would not consider that sharing an image on a private Facebook page was something done in the course of employment. Obviously it had later been shown to Mr Forbes by B, but it was the time when S shared the image that was relevant in this case.

Conclusions