Cass. Soc., September 25, 2024, no. 22-20.672 ; n° 23-11.860
As a reminder,
– a penalty imposed in violation of a fundamental freedom – such as respect for private life – can be nullified;
– a fact based on personal life can only justify dismissal if it constitutes a breach of an obligation arising from the employment contract.
An RATP driver is arrested by the police for possession of cannabis in his personal vehicle.
Although the criminal proceedings had been dismissed, the police forwarded its report to the employer to ensure passenger safety. RATP dismissed the employee for serious misconduct.
The employee contested his dismissal and asked for it to be canceled, arguing that this event fell within the scope of his private life – protected by article 2 of the DDHC.
While the Paris Court of Appeal upheld with the employee’s argument, the Social Division of the French highest civil Court disagreed, ruling that the reason for dismissal “was based on the employee’s personal life, but not on the intimacy of his private life”.
Thus, while the dismissal lacks any real and serious cause, insofar as the reason chosen does not characterize a breach by the employee of an obligation arising from his employment contract, it is not null and void.
The Cour de cassation thus draws a distinction between the “intimacy of private life” – the violation of which entails the nullity of the sanction – and the employee’s personal life, without however providing precise clues enabling to distinguish between the two. The Highest civil Court does, however, specify that violation of the secrecy of correspondence is an invasion of privacy.