And speaking of matters of perspective brings me to the case of Forbes v LHR Airport Ltd 2019, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether an employer could be held liable for racial harassment arising from an employee’s offensive social media post, outside work.

Mr Forbes was employed by LHR Airport Ltd and worked as a security officer at Heathrow Airport.  In November 2016, his work colleague, Ms Stevens shared an image on her Facebook page depicting a golliwog with a racially offensive caption. Ms Stevens did not post the image on a work-related platform, did not tag Mr Forbes, and did not send it to him directly. However, another colleague who was Facebook friends with Ms Stevens saw the image and later showed it to Mr Forbes while they were at work.

Mr Forbes was upset and offended by the image. He raised a formal grievance with LHR, alleging racial harassment. LHR investigated the complaint, upheld the grievance, and concluded that Ms Stevens’ conduct was inappropriate. She received a final written warning and was required to apologise to Mr Forbes, which she did.

Despite this, tensions remained. In December 2016, Mr Forbes discovered that he had been rostered to work alongside Ms Stevens, which caused him distress. When he objected, LHR moved him to work elsewhere. Mr Forbes felt that he was being victimised and discriminated against because of his protected act of complaining about the Facebook post. He was signed off sick until April 2017.

In March 2017, Mr Forbes brought claims in the Employment Tribunal for racial harassment, discrimination and victimisation, arguing that LHR was legally responsible for Ms Stevens’ Facebook post and had failed to protect him from its effects in the workplace.

The ET rejected Mr Forbes’ claims. Central to its decision was the finding that Ms Stevens’ Facebook post was not an act done “in the course of employment” under section 109 of the Equality Act 2010. The ET noted that the image was posted on a private social media account, outside working hours, using personal equipment, and without any work-related context. Although the image was later shown to Mr Forbes at work by another colleague, the ET considered this insufficient to establish the necessary connection between the post and Ms Stevens’ employment.

The ET also accepted that LHR had taken reasonable steps once it became aware of the issue. LHR had investigated promptly, upheld the grievance, disciplined Ms Stevens, and ensured that Mr Forbes was not required to work with her when he objected. As a result, the ET concluded that LHR was not vicariously liable for the harassment and that Mr Forbes’ claims could not succeed.

Mr Forbes appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He argued that the ET had taken too narrow of an approach to the concept of “in the course of employment”. In his view, the fact that the image was shared between colleagues and shown to him in the workplace meant there was a sufficient connection to employment for LHR to be liable. He also challenged the ET’s acceptance of the reasonable steps defence, arguing that LHR’s response did not go far enough to protect him from ongoing distress.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. It emphasised that whether conduct is carried out “in the course of employment” is a fact-sensitive question for the ET. The EAT found that the ET had been entitled to conclude that Ms Stevens’ actions were private in nature and lacked the close connection to work required for vicarious liability to arise.

The EAT rejected the argument that the mere fact that colleagues were Facebook friends, or that the image was later viewed at work, automatically brought the conduct within the scope of employment. It also upheld the ET’s finding that LHR had taken reasonable steps after the complaint was raised, noting that employers are not required to guarantee that harassment will never occur, only that they take reasonable preventative and corrective action.

This case is significant because it provides important guidance on the limits of employer liability for employees’ social media activity. It confirms that offensive or discriminatory posts made on personal social media accounts will not automatically be treated as occurring “in the course of employment” even where colleagues are involved or the content later impacts the workplace.

However, the judgment also underlines the importance of acting promptly and decisively once an employer becomes aware of such conduct. Effective grievance handling, proportionate disciplinary action, and practical steps to protect affected employees can be crucial in avoiding liability. Employers should therefore ensure they have clear social media policies, robust equality training, and well-managed grievance processes, as failures in these areas may still expose them to significant legal risk.