Can an employer intervene in issues relating to an employee’s personal relationships, which are inherently a private matter, and what constraints exist on such intervention? These questions were addressed by a recent ruling by the French Supreme Court on March 26, 2025.  An employee who held the position of Manager of partnerships and institutional relations (a senior level position), had a romantic relationship with a female colleague, who worked as an assistant accountant. This relationship had been established outside the workplace. Although she held a lower rank, she did not directly report to the Manager.

Following the breakdown of their relationship, the Manager contacted the employee (in particular by sending her numerous messages to her work email address and emphasizing his position as a member of the management committee) to obtain an explanation for the breakup. The employee replied that she wished to maintain a strictly professional relationship, as the situation had caused her considerable distress at work.

The company subsequently dismissed the senior employee for serious misconduct, on the grounds that he had behaved inappropriately towards his colleague, and that he had breached his duty of care, even though the facts related to his private life.

The French Supreme Court stated that the employee’s behavior, based on his attempts to rekindle the romantic relationship, despite his colleague’s explicit refusal to pursue a personal relationship, had created a hostile and harmful work environment for her mental health.

The Court concluded that the employee’s position constituted a breach of his obligations under his employment contract; was incompatible with his responsibilities, and that such behaviour was likely to harm the mental health of his colleague.  This made it impossible for him to continue working for the company.

In its decision, the French Supreme Court stated the following:

• An employee’s personal life cannot, in principle, provide sufficient grounds for  disciplinary dismissal unless it involves a breach of an obligation in his/her employment contract by the employee.
• Article L. 4122-1 of the French Labor Code, requires employees to look after their own health and safety, as well as that of others at their workplace, in accordance with their training and capabilities. The employer, having been alerted by the occupational health physician and the female employee’s manager about the latter’s unhappiness at work, could infer that the behavior of the Manager, (with the intention of obtaining an explanation for the break up in the relationship, or of continuing the relationship despite the clear refusal of his female colleague), regardless of whether she was directly subordinate to him constituted a breach of his obligations under his employment contract.  Irrespective of the fact that this was in relation to a private matter, it took place at the workplace and during working hours. Such behavior was likely to harm the mental health of another employee and made it impossible for him to continue working for the company.

This ruling is interesting in particular for the following reasons:

To justify a dismissal for serious misconduct, it is not necessary to label the employee’s behaviour as harassment in the dismissal letter. The court can assess the facts in the letter to determine if they constitute a valid cause for dismissal. ·

This ruling highlights the importance of considering psychosocial risks in the workplace with employers becoming increasingly involved in the private lives of their employees.

Finally, this decision broadens the scope of the employer’s duty of care assessment beyond the workplace alone.  In this case, the incriminating facts stemmed from the employees’ personal lives.  The boundary for respecting privacy is defined by any harm to the health or safety of other employees in which indicates a failure to comply with health and safety obligations.

Key takeaway

This decision represents an expansion of the employer’s duty of care assessment beyond the confines of the workplace itself. French employment law has become more focused on the employer’s duty of care to its employees and employees are increasingly claiming potential breaches of this duty, even as in this case, where the facts arose originally from the private lives of those involved.  The issue is where the boundary for respecting privacy is drawn.  This case indicates that the court will consider the harm to the health or safety of other employees and whether that  involves a failure by an employee to comply with safety obligations.