Inadmissibility of audio recordings obtained unfairly by an employee
CA Rennes, January 8, 2025, n°21/03379

An employee who claimed to be the victim of moral harassment by her colleagues and superiors submitted audio recordings made without their knowledge before the labour court. The judges held that these recordings were neither necessary nor proportionate, as the employee already had witness statements from colleagues and had filed a formal complaint. Therefore, the alleged moral harassment could be established by means less intrusive to the right to privacy.

No gross misconduct for the mere transfer of professional documents to a personal email account
Soc. April 9, 2025, n°24-12.055

An employee was dismissed for transferring confidential work-related data from her professional email account to her personal email address. The French Supreme Court held that the dismissal was unjustified, as there was no evidence that the data had been disclosed to third parties, and the employee, who had significant seniority, had no prior disciplinary record.

The use of an IP address without the employee’s consent renders the evidence inadmissible
Soc. April 9, 2025, n°23-13.159

An employee was dismissed for gross misconduct following a bailiff’s report, which, through the identification of his IP address, revealed the mass deletion of professional documents and the transfer of work-related emails to two personal addresses. The French Supreme Court reiterated that IP addresses constitute personal data, and that their collection and processing are therefore subject to the GDPR’s stringent requirements of lawfulness, transparency, and purpose limitation. Without the employee’s consent, and where there is a diversion from the intended purpose, such use for monitoring is unlawful. The judges had to assess whether the production of such data was strictly necessary in light of the right to a fair trial and the admissibility of evidence.

Dismissal for unfitness and non-competition clause: the waiver of the non-compete clause must occur no later than the employee’s actual termination date
Soc. April 29, 2025, n°23-22.191

An employer who does not wish to enforce a non-compete clause against an employee dismissed for unfitness must expressly waive it no later than the employee’s actual termination date, regardless of any contractual provisions to the contrary.

This ruling aligns with longstanding case law establishing that, when the notice period is waived, the employer must renounce the non-compete clause by the employee’s effective departure date, notwithstanding any opposing contractual terms. This principle equally applies in cases of dismissal for incapacity, as the employee does not serve a notice period.