The situation
An employee posted something offensive online that named the business and upset both colleagues and a client. Word spread quickly, and the owner, worried about reputation, wanted to dismiss on the spot.
Why it was difficult
The usual defences, 'it was private' and 'it was just banter', do not automatically protect an employee, but a knee-jerk dismissal without a fair process still fails. The firm's own conduct and social media policy, or the lack of one, also mattered.
What Samantha did
- Assessed whether the post genuinely crossed the line, and what real risk it created for the business
- Followed a fair investigation and disciplinary process rather than reacting instantly
- Weighed the content against policy and the firm's legitimate reputational concerns
- Reached a proportionate, defensible outcome and tightened the policy for the future
What it could have cost
It was private and it was only banter are not defences, but a knee-jerk dismissal still loses. Both the firm's reputation and the process were at risk at the same time.
The outcome
The matter was dealt with fairly and proportionately. The firm's reputation was protected, the outcome was defensible, and clearer expectations were put in place for everyone.
Reputation protected. Decision held.
What this means for you
'It was private' and 'just banter' are not shields, but nor is instant dismissal safe. The content plus a fair process is what protects you and your firm's name.
Related support
Disciplinary support →Anonymised. Sector, names and identifying details have been removed or changed. Outcomes reflect the specific circumstances of each case and are not a guarantee of any particular result.