Can private use of social media lead to dismissal for urgent reasons?

In today's digital age, the line between private life and work is becoming increasingly blurred. Many employees wonder whether controversial statements on Facebook or X (formerly Twitter) can lead to immediate dismissal. The short answer is: yes, it can, but the bar is set very high. Even in the case of highly controversial opinions, the courts often rule that dismissal for urgent reasons is disproportionate if there is no direct damage to the employer and the employee immediately shows remorse.

The facts: controversial expressions of support on Facebook

This issue was central to a ruling of the Labor Court in Brussels on 25 June 2025. The case revolved around an administrative employee who had been working for a health insurance fund (Solidaris) since 2007.

In May 2021, during the manhunt for radicalized soldier Jürgen Conings, the employee shared several posts on her public Facebook profile. In these posts, she downplayed the threat posed by Conings, stating that he had “not yet done anything illegal” and sharing images with slogans such as “Free Jürgen” and “Il faut sauver le soldat Jürgen” (We must save soldier Jürgen)” .

The employer received a complaint from a third party about these posts and confronted the employee about them. During the interview, the employee admitted to posting the messages, initially claiming that they were meant to be humorous. After being confronted with the facts surrounding the terrorism investigation, she distanced herself from her support and immediately deleted the messages.

Nevertheless, the employer proceeded to dismiss her for urgent reasons, arguing that her behavior was diametrically opposed to the values of the organization and made cooperation impossible..

The decision of the Labor Court

The Labor Court in Brussels upheld the initial ruling, finding that the dismissal for urgent reasons was unfounded. The employer was ordered to pay severance pay of more than €43,000.

The Court reached this conclusion on the basis of the following elements:

• No privacy protection, but freedom of speech is not absolute: The employee could not invoke a violation of her privacy, because her profile was public and she intended to share the messages widely. As for the freedom of speech (Art. 10 ECHR), the Court ruled that although this right applies, it may be restricted by the duty of loyalty in the employment contract.
• Disproportionality of the sanction: Although the posts were inappropriate and contrary to the values of the health insurance fund, the Court ruled that they did not constitute “apology for violence or hatred”.
• No direct link with employer: The employee did not mention who her employer was anywhere in the posts and did not criticize the organization itself.
• Limited damage to reputation: Only one complaint had been received, which meant that the actual damage to the employer's reputation appeared to be limited.
• Employee attitude: The employee had a clean disciplinary record for 14 years, immediately acknowledged her mistake, and deleted the messages during the interview.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling illustrates the delicate balancing act between Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) and Article 5.73 of the Civil Code (the performance of agreements in good faith), as well as Article 17 of the Employment Contracts Act.

The core of the legal debate lies in proportionality. An urgent reason (Article 35 of the Employment Contracts Act) is the most severe sanction in labor law and requires a fault that immediately and definitively renders any further professional cooperation impossible.

The Court confirms the prevailing case law that a serious error of judgment in the private sphere (or the public sphere outside working hours) does not automatically lead to an irreparable breach of trust. The fact that the employee did not hold a managerial or public position and that the link with the employer was not explicitly made carries considerable weight.

Furthermore, the Court emphasizes the importance of the employee's “process of change.” Dismissal for urgent reasons is often considered unjustified when an employee with a long service record acknowledges their mistake immediately after confrontation and attempts to rectify it (in this case, by deleting the posts). The employer should have opted for a lighter sanction, such as a warning, instead of the most severe option of summary dismissal.

What this specifically means

This ruling has important implications for both employers and employees in Belgium.

For the employer

• Be careful with the ‘urgent reason’: A controversial opinion expressed by an employee, even if it goes against your company values, does not automatically justify summary dismissal.
• Examine the impact: Is there actual damage to your reputation? Is your company name mentioned?
• Hearing both sides of the story is crucial: The employee's attitude during the interview is essential. Does the employee show remorse and remove the content immediately? If so, dismissal for urgent reasons is probably a bridge too far.

For the employee

• Be careful with public profiles: The Court clearly ruled that you cannot claim privacy if you share posts publicly or share them with a large audience. Your employer may use this information.
• Separate work and private life: Do not mention your employer in political or controversial discussions. This is often considered an aggravating circumstance.
• Social Media Policy: Read your company's social media policy. Although violations do not always lead to dismissal for urgent reasons, they can lead to disciplinary sanctions or dismissal with notice.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Are my Facebook posts protected by the right to privacy?

Not if your profile is public or if you share messages that are accessible to a large audience. The Labor Court ruled that in such cases, you cannot reasonably expect privacy and that your employer may use these posts as evidence .

Can I be fired for my political views?

You have freedom of speech, but it is not absolute. If your statements incite hatred, violence, or seriously damage your employer's reputation, sanctions under labor law may follow. However, dismissal for urgent reasons requires a very serious offense.

What is the difference between dismissal for urgent reasons and ‘normal’ dismissal?

In the event of dismissal for urgent reasons, the employment relationship ends immediately, without notice and without severance pay. The employee also loses the right to unemployment benefits. Given the serious consequences, courts only accept this for the most serious offenses.

Conclusion

Although employees must exercise caution on social media, case law confirms that dismissal for urgent reasons should not be given lightly. A single misstep in one's private life, followed by sincere remorse, is often insufficient grounds for terminating an employment contract without compensation.