Overview of a High Court Ruling on Social Media, Leave, and Dismissal
In a decision recently published by the Castilla y Leon High Court of Justice, the dismissal of an employee was upheld after investigation into videos posted on a personal social media account. The court accepted the employee’s TikTok material as decisive evidence concerning the justification for the termination. This ruling illustrates how different courts view employee activity on personal networks during periods of authorized leave, with some jurisdictions deeming such content admissible and others considering limitations based on awareness or consent to dissemination.
The events trace back to September 14, 2021, when Semark AC Group SA informed a worker about his dismissal while he was on nearly nine months of medical leave due to a back issue. The employee had accumulated fifteen years of service and had been periodically renewed on temporary disability status supported by medical reports until the site administrator alerted human resources to content appearing on the employee’s personal TikTok profile.
Judges found that the employee had posted numerous streams from the discharge date up to September 10, showing movements and dancing that appeared inconsistent with the back injury diagnosed in January 2021. What had been expected as a brief recovery period had evolved into a viral set of videos that the court described as exposing misconduct related to the employment relationship and a lack of respect toward the company and its colleagues. The dismissal letter itself quotes this assessment and frames the videos as evidence of conduct incompatible with the employee’s condition, undermining trust in the workplace.
It is understood that temporary disability leaves excuse absence from work to recover, yet they also oblige the employee to take all reasonable steps to safeguard health and avoid activities that could worsen the illness or be incompatible with recovery. The Supreme Court judges concluded that the dismissal was properly issued by the employer, finding no procedural error and denying the employee’s appeal that had been lodged with the court of first instance. The high court affirmed that the TikTok videos shared by the employee were binding evidence once their publication date could be verified by an expert report.
A cautionary note was issued about public social profiles. The growth of social networks in the workplace has sparked considerable attention, and penalties differ in how they are interpreted. Some argue that employers intrude on privacy when monitoring employees’ social media, even when material relevant to the job is uncovered. Others contend that a worker who disseminates content with knowledge of its public nature may not claim a privacy breach, depending on jurisdiction and facts. A distinct Canary Islands ruling from 2016 involved a Facebook posting by a worker who injured an arm during leisure time and later posted home activity while on sick leave. In that case, Canarian judges held that the employee, as a public social media user, was aware that exposure to the company and others was possible, which strengthened the evidentiary value of the posts. The Asturias High Court in 2013 also noted that a worker who posted on social media while on medical leave could have such content admitted as evidence if it was relevant to the case.
Freedom of expression remains a central but controversial issue that sometimes clashes with a company’s obligation to protect its corporate image. In many judgments, the prevailing view supports the employee’s right to post on personal networks, provided the individual does not present themselves as a company representative in their profile. Yet interpretations vary by jurisdiction, and the balance between individual rights and business interests continues to be debated in courts across the region. Source: Court decisions and legal analyses summarized from regional jurisprudence
Practical Takeaways for Workers and Employers
Employees should understand that social media activity can have consequences for their employment, even when posts occur outside work hours. Employers may view public content as evidence of attitudes or behaviors relevant to job performance or workplace safety. On the other hand, workers should be mindful of privacy expectations and the extent to which employers monitor personal networks. When in doubt, seeking guidance from human resources or legal counsel can help clarify permissible conduct during medical leave and the boundaries of reviewing social media content. Notes reflect a composite view of regional decisions and do not replace legal advice.