Cour de cassation, Social Chamber · 25 September 2024 · 23-11.860
An employer relied in part on messages a worker had exchanged with three people through his work email. It dismissed him for serious misconduct. The messages were objectionable, but a second question mattered to the court. In what capacity, and to whom, had he written them?
What made the exchange private
The findings in the case placed the exchange outside the employee’s work duties. It was private and was never intended for publication. The use of company equipment did not, on its own, make the content professional. The exchange disclosed no breach of a contractual obligation that could justify disciplinary action on this ground.
What the employee kept
The Versailles appeal court had declared the dismissal void and ordered payments. The Cour de cassation rejected the employer’s appeal. Because the employer had relied even partly on the private correspondence, the employee retained the benefit of that judgment.
Where the distinction lies
Audience, purpose and connection to work were central. Messages directed at a colleague in the course of work, or conduct breaching a workplace obligation, would raise different questions. The mere presence of a company email address did not resolve this case.
