1. Introduction
As social media platforms have become an integral part of people’s daily lives, employers may monitor posts made by employees outside the scope of their employment relationship, and in some cases, these posts may lead to disciplinary action or termination of the employment contract. However, not every post an employee makes on their social media account can be considered a disciplinary violation or grounds for termination in the context of the employment relationship.
At this point, a balance must be struck between maintaining workplace order, the employer’s right to manage, the employee’s duty of loyalty, and the employer’s commercial reputation, on one hand, and the employee’s right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, on the other hand. In particular, the connection of the post to the employer or the workplace, its content, whether it damages the employer’s commercial reputation, whether it disrupts workplace order, and whether it concretely causes negativity or unrest in the workplace are all significant factors in the termination assessment. Accordingly, employers must act in a proportionate manner.
In the case law of the Supreme Court, there is no uniform approach regarding social media posts; while termination is deemed valid in some cases, in others it is deemed invalid or unjust because the employer cannot concretely demonstrate the alleged negative consequences.
2. Assessment of Whether a Social Media Post Can Constitute Grounds for Termination
Depending on its nature, an employee’s social media post may be evaluated under the provisions of the Labor Law No. 4857 (“Labor Law”), governing termination for valid or just cause.
Pursuant to Article 18 of the Labor Law, in workplaces employing thirty or more employees, for an employer to terminate the indefinite-term employment contract of an employee with at least six months of seniority, there must be a valid reason arising from the employee’s competence, conduct, or the requirements of the business, workplace, or job. When evaluating an employee’s social media posts, situations arising from the employee’s conduct that significantly impede the continuation of the employment relationship from the employer’s perspective, violate the employment contract, and create adverse effects on the employment relationship may constitute valid grounds for termination.
Article 25 of the Labor Law sets forth the grounds for just cause termination, such as insulting the employer, disclosing trade secrets or confidential information, serious violations of workplace order that constitute a breach of the employer’s trust, theft, or revealing the employer’s professional secrets, i.e. behaviors that violate integrity and loyalty, may, when the conditions are met, constitute grounds for immediate termination for just cause.
If the just causes specified in the Labor Law are present, the employer may immediately terminate the employee’s employment contract without waiting for the notice period. Conversely, in cases where the conduct does not rise to the level of a just cause for termination but significantly adversely affects the employment relationship, termination for valid cause may be applicable. However, it cannot be assumed that every critical post constitutes a breach of the duty of truthfulness and loyalty or serves as grounds for termination by the employer.
The employer must specify the grounds for termination and, if necessary, provide proof. Therefore, a sole abstract claim such as “the employee’s social media post has disrupted workplace harmony” will not, on its own, be sufficient, particularly with regard to just or valid termination. In this regard, a decision must be made after investigating matters such as the content of the post, whether the post relates to the employer or other employees, how the employer’s commercial reputation or workplace order was affected by the relevant post, whether the employee breached their duty of loyalty and care, and to whom the post was made public and under what access conditions.
3. Supreme Court Practice Regarding Social Media Posts
In the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding social media posts, it is evident that the content of the post and its concrete impact on the workplace are the determining factors.
In its decision with Case No. 2014/10658, Decision No. 2014/10130, dated April 28, 2014, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court evaluated posts made by an employee on their Facebook account directed at their employer. The Court concluded that, although the statements in the posts did not amount to “insult,” they were of a nature that undermined the relationship of trust between the employee and the employer and constituted a valid ground for termination. Thus, it was accepted that even if a social media post does not constitute a just cause for termination, it may still constitute a valid ground for termination.
In contrast, a different assessment was made by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in its decision with Case No. 2016/34334, Decision No. 2018/752, dated January 22, 2018. Regarding the employee’s critical social media post about the workplace and working conditions, the Supreme Court held that the statement, “K1 bro, the capitalist system is like this, no matter how hard you work, it easily discards you when it doesn’t suit its interests; the pressure exerted by 2M Cable on people is absolutely a crime both legally and humanely,” should be evaluated within the scope of general criticism and freedom of expression, noting that the employee did not specifically target the employer or its representative, and that the employer failed to prove that the employee’s conduct caused adverse effects at the workplace or that the employment contract was terminated for just cause. Consequently, the termination was deemed invalid.
In its decision with Case No. 2019/8231, Decision No. 2020/532, dated January 16, 2020, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that, considering the content of the posts made on the Twitter account, which glorified terrorism and a terrorist organization and were contrary to the country’s indivisible unity, the termination was justified, however, it ruled that it could not be definitively established that the posts belonged to the employee and assessed the burden of proof regarding the termination against the employer.
An employee was photographed praying at patients’ bedsides alongside coworkers during work hours, with the name of their employer clearly visible, and shared this photo under the caption “We’re praying that no patients come in, … Hospital :)” in a post on social media. In the decision issued by the 7th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court with Case No. 2015/46017, Decision No. 2016/11591, dated May 26, 2016, it was noted that the employer’s name and logo were used in the shared photo and that the employee was seen wearing their uniform and name tag in the photo; that this post received 1,285 likes and 52 comments; and that the “nurse-lifesaver” group where the photo was posted had approximately 13,102 members; and, in this context, the Court stated that the publication of the employee’s photographs taken during working hours and known to be shared on a social media platform where they could be viewed by thousands of people was of a nature that would affect workplace discipline and workflow, and that, accordingly, the employer could not be expected to continue the employment relationship with the employee; furthermore, while there may not be a just cause for termination, there was a valid reason for termination.
Consequently, the fundamental conclusion that can be drawn from the Supreme Court’s case law is that the content of a social media post must be evaluated not in isolation but in light of its impact on the employment relationship.
A recent example of this approach can be seen in the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court with Case No. 2025/9059, Decision No. 2025/10261, dated December 23, 2025. In the specific case, the employee was dismissed without compensation pursuant to Article 25/II of the Labor Law due to a social media post containing statements such as “the boss’s slave, the boss’s dog, does whatever the boss says” directed at the president of the union of which he was a member. The Supreme Court concluded that the conditions for just cause termination were not met, noting that the union president is not an employee of the employer, that the post in question was not of such gravity as to constitute a breach of the duty of truthfulness and loyalty, and that it could not be concretely demonstrated that workplace harmony had been disrupted. This decision is particularly significant with regard to social media posts, as the employer’s mere assertion that an employee’s social media post constitutes grounds for termination is not sufficient on its own; rather, the employer must demonstrate, based on the specific circumstances of the case, the negative impact on the employment relationship and the conditions justifying the termination.
On the other hand, in its decision with Case no. 2017/20987, Decision No. 2018/4197 K., dated February 26, 2018, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court evaluated the content shared and liked by an employee working at a workplace affiliated with a public institution on their social media account following the July 15 coup attempt; taking into account the social sensitivities of the time, the nature of the post, and the negative consequences that arose at the workplace, it was concluded that the termination was based on a valid reason.
Upon reviewing the decisions mentioned above, it is evident that, from the perspective of the Supreme Court’s assessment, whether a social media post constitutes grounds for termination must be determined based on the specific circumstances of the case.
4. Constitutional Assessment Regarding Freedom of Expression and Privacy of Private Life
An employee’s social media activities may be evaluated within the scope of legal protection regarding the privacy of private life and freedom of expression, depending on the nature of the post, the account’s accessibility, and the circumstances of the specific case. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that an employer may monitor social media activities outside the employment relationship without limitation.
Article 20 of the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, while Article 26 guarantees freedom of expression. The existence of an employment relationship does not mean that the employee has completely waived these fundamental rights. However, freedom of expression is not unlimited either. In cases where an employee insults the employer, discloses trade secrets, shares confidential information belonging to customers or other employees, seriously disrupts the workplace order, or severely undermines the employer’s trust, the employer’s authority to impose disciplinary action or terminate the employment may come into play.
In the Constitutional Court’s decision numbered 2019/38252, dated January 11, 2023, regarding the case of İdil Alakuş Dere, the termination of an employment contract of a person working as an editor at a newspaper due to social media posts was examined in light of freedom of expression, and the Court ruled that the applicant’s freedom of expression had been violated. The Constitutional Court emphasized that it must be demonstrated with concrete grounds whether the relationship of trust between the employer and the employee had been undermined.
However, the Constitutional Court’s approach does not imply that social media posts cannot under any circumstances serve as grounds for termination. Indeed, in its decision regarding Umut İlter (numbered 2019/20965, dated December 13, 2023), the Constitutional Court concluded that there was no violation of freedom of expression in the termination of an employment contract due to a social media post, and that the restriction imposed on freedom of expression met a necessary social need and was proportionate.
When these decisions are evaluated together, it becomes clear that there is no automatic rule regarding the use of social media posts as grounds for termination, and that each case must be evaluated based on its own specific circumstances.
5. Evaluation of Social Media Posts from the Perspective of Personal Data Protection
Social media posts must also be evaluated in the context of the Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (“Law”) during the termination process. An employer’s collection, recording, review, sharing with third parties, or use of data from an employee’s social media account (particularly special category personal data) during the termination process may constitute a personal data processing activity depending on the specific circumstances of the case. Accordingly, employers must act in accordance with the general principles and data processing conditions of the Law.
In its decision dated January 19, 2023, and numbered 2023/86, the Personal Data Protection Board examined the monitoring of corporate email content by employers and its use during the termination process. While evaluating the legal basis for data processing in terms of the employer’s right to terminate employment and protect its rights in a dispute, the Board also emphasized that the data must be relevant to the purpose, limited, and proportionate.
Similarly, in the Personal Data Protection Board’s decision dated March 9, 2021, and numbered 2021/205, the Personal Data Protection Board evaluated the employer’s actions regarding the employee’s computer and email account following the termination of the employment relationship; a separate assessment was also conducted regarding the employer’s formatting of the company computer and closing of the company email account.
Although these decisions of the Personal Data Protection Board do not directly pertain to social media posts, they establish general principles regarding the employer’s monitoring and processing of employees’ data stored in electronic environments that can be considered in terms of purpose limitation, necessity, proportionality, and legal basis.
For this reason, it must also be examined whether the data obtained by the employer while investigating the employee’s social media account is directly relevant to the termination and whether the method of obtaining it was lawful. Using data obtained in violation of the law as a basis for termination or litigation may also raise the issue of the admissibility of the evidence.
6. Conclusion
When assessing whether social media posts can serve as grounds for termination of an employment contract, the employer’s management rights must be considered alongside the employee’s rights to freedom of expression and privacy.
When the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court are evaluated together, it is clear that the sole existence of a social media post is not sufficient grounds for termination; it is necessary to evaluate, in conjunction, factors such as proof that the post belongs to the employee, the nature of the content, the connection between the post and the employment relationship, its impact on the workplace, whether it causes concrete and serious harm to the employer’s commercial or corporate reputation, the employee’s fault, and the proportionality of the termination sanction. Accordingly, a legal distinction must be made between posts that solely conflict with the employer’s own views or expectations or pertain to the employee’s private life and those that lead to the disclosure of the employer’s trade secrets, the emergence of serious adverse consequences in the workplace, or a severe breach of the employee’s duty of loyalty and commitment.
For a termination to be considered legally valid or justified, in addition to being carried out in accordance with statutory provisions, it must be established that, under the specific circumstances of the case, continuing the employment relationship cannot reasonably be expected of the employer, and the adverse circumstances cited as grounds for termination must be demonstrated with concrete, credible, and legally valid evidence. Furthermore, it is important to assess whether the termination sanction imposed is proportionate to the severity of the employee’s conduct and whether the same objective could have been achieved through a less severe measure.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
