OD Flash | Private behavior can justify disciplinary dismissal

Cass. soc., 26 March 2025, n°23-17.544 F-B

In this case, after a romantic break-up with a colleague, a senior executive used his work email account to try to re-establish a dialogue, despite his ex-partner’s clearly expressed wish not to continue their relationship. This behaviour caused the employee distress at work, as confirmed by both the occupational health physician and management. As a result, the manager was dismissed for gross misconduct.

The employee challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court, arguing that these events were part of his private life and could not justify a disciplinary dismissal unless they were related to his professional life and constituted a breach of an obligation under his employment contract, which he argued was not the case. He also argued that the mere fact that he was seeking an explanation for a romantic disappointment or attempting to reopen a dialogue after a break-up did not make his continued employment impossible.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments. First, it noted that the employer had been alerted by the occupational health practitioner to the employee’s distress, which was potentially harmful to her health and arose from relationship difficulties with the dismissed employee.

Then, on the basis of e-mails sent via the company’s e-mail system, the manager’s testimony and a letter from the occupational physician, the court considered the employee’s behaviour towards his colleague to be inappropriate.  He had insisted on continuing the exchange despite the employee’s clear wish to keep their relationship strictly professional, thereby causing distress at work.

The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) upheld the lower court’s analysis.

The French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) confirmed the lower court’s analysis.

While recalling that facts relating to the employee’s private life cannot, in principle, justify disciplinary dismissal unless they constitute a breach of an obligation arising from the employment contract, the French Supreme Court specified that every employee has a duty to ensure the safety of his colleagues under Article L. 4122-1 of the French Labour Code.

In this case, although the events took place in the personal sphere, the employee’s behaviour damaged the psychological well-being of a colleague, thus constituting a breach of his duty of care. The French Supreme Court ruled that, given the employee’s high hierarchical position – even in the absence of a direct reporting line to the affected colleague – this breach was incompatible with his responsibilities and made his continued employment untenable.

This ruling is in line with previous case law on the subject: an employer cannot escape its responsibility in cases of harassment by arguing that the situation is part of the employee’s private life (Cass. Soc., 15 February 2023, no. 21-23.919).

The decision confirms that a manager can be dismissed for gross misconduct for inappropriate behaviour – even if it does not qualify as harassment – as long as it poses a risk to the health or safety of another employee.

However, it is worth noting that the French Supreme Court explicitly took into account the employee’s high hierarchical position. The outcome might have been different in a similar case involving two employees of the same grade with limited responsibilities within the company.