On Tuesday (13 May), Lineker reposted a video by advocacy group Palestine Lobby titled “Zionism explained in less than 2 mins.” The original video included an illustration of a rat, which has been historically used as an antisemitic insult.
Lineker said in a statement: “On Instagram, I reposted material which I have since learned contained offensive references. I very much regret these references. I would never knowingly share anything antisemitic. It goes against everything I believe in," according to a BBC report.
Lineker’s apology came hours after the BBC's director general, Tim Davie, reminded the corporation's journalists and broadcasters to follow social media rules.
It can be difficult, and near impossible, for employers to dictate what their employees can post on social media, however, they can implement clear policies to avoid reputational damage, said Simon Jones, founder of HR consultancy Ariadne Associates.
Read more: White House security breach raises workplace social media concerns
He told HR magazine: “Businesses can have clear policies about the overlap between business and personal social media. If an individual states who they work for on their personal social media post, then an employer can take a legitimate interest in what is said. In the case of Gary Lineker, he is very clearly associated with the BBC as the public face of their football coverage, so they are entitled to at least raise the matter with him.
"Overall, however, employees are entitled to their own personal views, even if these contradict the values of an organisation.”
If employers decide to monitor employees’ social media posts, extra care should be given to this process, added Audrey Williams, employment partner at law firm Keystone Law.
Speaking to HR magazine, she said: “Care must be taken if an employer is planning to monitor employee posts (unless this is in their official/employed capacity), because this could be considered interference with an employee’s personal and private life. Any monitoring should be compliant with the employer’s GDPR policy, have a legitimate objective, and must consider data protection obligations.
“The organisation should be clear about why and what restrictions are in place, with clearly communicated rationale. Think carefully about whether this should be limited to work posts, or could be restricted by a requirement not to identify their employment.”
Read more: How can HR deal with social media auditing?
When asked whether the post had broken BBC guidelines, director general Tim Davie said: "The BBC's reputation is held by everyone, and when someone makes a mistake, it costs us. We absolutely need people to be exemplars of BBC values, and follow our social media policy. It's as simple as that."
If employers are considering taking disciplinary action against an employee for their social media use, they need to consider a business-related reason to do so, Andrew Davidson, head of employment at law firm Hempsons, stated.
He told HR magazine: “One of the most common reasons is damage or potential damage to reputation, particularly where the employee is identified as being associated with the employer, which is what has happened in the Lineker case.
“In these cases, HR should act quickly to gather evidence of the social media activity, confirm that the employee is the source of the activity and consider the context of the activity. They should then assess how serious the issue is, and potential impacts on the business.”
Lineker was temporarily suspended from the BBC in March 2023 after sharing a tweet comparing the Home Office’s asylum policy to Germany in the 1930s.
Lineker originally commented on a video message shared by the then home secretary Suella Braverman, about stopping people from crossing the Channel. He tweeted: “Good heavens, this is beyond awful.”
When challenged by someone on X, he said: “There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”
Read more: Half of employees knowingly share risky social media posts
Joanna Sutton, principal associate at law firm Nockolds, told HR magazine: “Disciplinary action can be taken if an employee breaches rules, even on their private social media account, such as by sharing confidential information, bullying or harassing colleagues, or even taking political positions which may damage the neutrality or reputation of an employer's brand.
“However, employers can find themselves in a legal grey area if employees use personal devices which they are also using for work purposes or if they are using personal social media accounts for work purposes.”
Employers should prioritise transparency when developing social media policies, added Martin Hardy, founder of online vetting company SP Index.
He told HR magazine: “To get the balance right, company guidelines and policies should be crystal clear. It’s also crucial for employees to be encouraged to ask questions or seek clarification whenever needed; such open and transparent dialogue helps minimise the risk of adverse social media use.
“Employees have the right to freedom of expression. As long as their personal views and opinions do not impact the company they work for, they should not be penalised for expressing these online.”
