Before Disciplining Over a Personal Social-Media Post, Run This Two-Part Check

A personal post is not automatically work speech

A manager finds a personal post that is offensive, confusing, or bad for the brand. The first instinct is to fire. The better move is to check whether the post is actually part of the job.

The legal question is whether the employer can connect the post to the employee's role, the company's reputation, or a written commitment. A broad social-media policy is good practice. A defensible connection to the job is what the decision will test.

Employees can have personal accounts, personal opinions, and personal mistakes. The risk is acting on a hunch that the post is work-related when the record does not say so. The distinction matters most when the employee is visible: a sales rep, brand ambassador, public official, coach, or broadcaster may be held to a different standard than someone whose job is not performed in public. The difference is the role, not the employee's personality.

A 9th Circuit panel in San Francisco held that Bonneville International Corp. could fire Grant Napear over his 2020 All Lives Matter tweet.

Napear worked as a Sacramento Kings play-by-play announcer and radio host; Bonneville suspended him the day after the tweet and fired him the next day, so both jobs ended within 48 hours in May 2020, amid the protests after George Floyd's death.

The panel noted that his contract required him to be especially careful on social media because his behavior could influence how the public saw Bonneville.

The panel also found that the post was tied to his public celebrity identity, so it fell within his professional role.

Napear's attorney, Matthew Ruggles, argued that the account was personal, that he had about 38,500 earlier tweets, and that the post was not made on air, during a shift, or as part of a show.

U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd dismissed the lawsuit before trial, and a 9th Circuit panel of Judges Bridget Bade, Danielle Forrest, and Lawrence VanDyke upheld the dismissal.

The case does not make every offensive post terminable. A post can become work-related when the role itself is public and the paperwork says so.

Two questions decide whether the post is work-related

Before you discipline or terminate, run the post through two questions. Each question is testable in a minute if the paperwork and public materials are in order.

• Contract or policy tie. Does the offer letter, employment contract, employee handbook, or signed policy say that the employee's social-media conduct is connected to the company's image, reputation, brand, or public role? If yes, identify the exact clause, the date the employee acknowledged it, and the scope of the restriction. If no, the policy is probably not enough.
• Public presentation. Is the employee publicly presented as the company's face, brand, professional persona, or public spokesperson? If yes, identify the channels, titles, bios, company use of their name or likeness, and the audience that sees them as representing the company. If no, the post is more likely personal.

The first item protects you from treating every personal account as a company channel. The second item protects you from treating every employee as a public figure. Both matter because a policy can be broad, but the law still asks for a real connection to the job.

In Napear's case, the contract tie and the public-role finding both pointed the same way. The combination is what made the termination defensible, not the content of the tweet standing alone.

Document the bridge before you discipline

If both answers are yes, write down why the post is work-related. A short memo should state the clause or policy, the public role, the post, and the business harm or risk. Keep it factual. Do not describe the post as disgusting, unacceptable, or a betrayal unless those words are in the policy.

Consistency matters. If you have allowed similar posts from other employees, or if you have ignored similar posts from more senior employees, the discipline may look arbitrary. A manager should check comparable situations before acting, especially when the post is political, personal, or tied to a public event.

If both point to the role, the post may be treated as work-related; if either does not, do not rely on the social-media policy alone. You may still address workplace conduct, performance, or a separate policy violation. Keep the rule: check the contract or policy tie, check the public presentation, and document the bridge when both answers are yes.