Workplace relationships under French employment law

What employers can and cannot do, with statutory references and

key case law

Romantic relationships at work are not, in themselves, unlawful in France, and they are not, in themselves, a valid ground for dismissal. The legal difficulty starts when the employer tries to regulate employees’ private lives too aggressively, or when a relationship creates a conflict of interest, abuse of authority, harassment risk, or an objective disruption to the organisation.

French law approaches the issue through two core ideas.

First, employees retain a right to private life, including at work, and the employer may restrict that right only if the restriction is justified and proportionate. (Civil Code, art. 9; Labour Code, art. L.1121-1).

Second, private-life facts may become legally relevant when they connect to contractual duties or the functioning of the business, particularly for managers and “sensitive” functions (HR, compliance, employee relations, staff-representative negotiations). 

I. The legal baseline in France: private life, proportionality, and non-discrimination

A. Private life is protected as a legal principle

French law states plainly that everyone has a right to respect for private life (Civil Code, art. 9). In the employment context, the Labour Code adds that no restriction may be imposed on individual rights and freedoms unless it is justified by the nature of the task and proportionate to the aim pursued (Labour Code, art. L.1121-1).

The direct consequence is important: a blanket prohibition on workplace relationships is generally incompatible with French law, because it targets private life in a broad and disproportionate manner.

B. Family status (and relationship situations) cannot be used as a discriminatory criterion

French law prohibits discrimination in employment decisions (including discipline and dismissal) based on numerous protected grounds, including “situation de famille” (family status) (Labour Code, art. L.1132-1).

This reinforces the idea that an employer cannot treat an employee adversely merely because the employee is in a relationship (or because the relationship is “unwelcome” to someone else inside the company).

II. Can a French employer regulate office relationships at all?

Yes, but only within strict boundaries.

A. Internal rules must remain lawful and proportionate

Where a company has a règlement intérieur, it cannot contain provisions that are unlawful or that impose unjustified or disproportionate restrictions on rights and freedoms (Labour Code, art. L.1321-3, notably its proportionality requirement).

In practice, this means a company can adopt policies that address work-related risks created by relationships, but it must avoid rules that effectively police intimacy as such.

B. What tends to be acceptable in France

A compliant policy typically focuses on professional risks, for example:

• managing conflicts of interest and favouritism,

• preventing abuse of authority in hierarchical relationships,

• ensuring the integrity of HR/employee-representative processes,

• reinforcing anti-harassment safeguards.

The policy should aim at conduct and organisational risk, not at moral judgments or private-life scrutiny. This is the operational meaning of proportionality under L.1121-1 and L.1321-3.

III. When a relationship can justify employer action: the three main legal pathways

French case law distinguishes three recurring legal constructions.

Pathway 1: Breach of a contractual duty (loyalty / good faith) linked to the job

The contract must be performed in good faith (Labour Code, art. L.1222-1). LégifranceFor certain functions, especially senior roles entrusted with employer representation, HR authority, compliance, or employee-relations responsibilities, a relationship can create a conflict of interest that triggers duties of loyalty and transparency.

Key case (loyalty / concealment in a “sensitive” HR role): In Cass. soc., 29 May 2024, no. 22-16.218, the Court upheld the dismissal for serious misconduct of a manager in charge of HR and employer representation in employee-relations bodies who had concealed a long-term intimate relationship with an employee holding staff-representative mandates, while both participated in meetings on sensitive matters (including restructuring topics). The Court approved the reasoning that concealing the relationship, because it was connected to the employee’s functions and capable of affecting the proper exercise of those functions, constituted a breach of the duty of loyalty, and that this breach made continued employment impossible, even without proof of actual damage. Légifrance+1

This decision is often misunderstood. The Court did not say “relationships are forbidden.” It said that, in a specific configuration, the relationship created a professional integrity risk, and the employee’s concealment was treated as a loyalty breach tied to his role. Légifrance

Pathway 2: “Objective disruption” to the company (non-disciplinary ground)

French law draws a line between discipline for fault and dismissal based on an objective disruption to the business. Case law accepts that a private-life fact may justify dismissal when, given the nature of the employee’s role and the purpose of the organisation, the conduct creates a “trouble objectif caractérisé” (characterised objective disturbance) within the company.

A classic illustration (not a romance case, but structurally important) is Cass. soc., 1 February 2017, where the Court recalled that private-life facts can support dismissal where the employee’s behaviour, considering the role and the organisation’s purpose, has created an objective disturbance.

Applied to office relationships, the lesson is narrow but real: the employer must evidence disruption to the organisation, not merely discomfort, gossip, or moral disapproval.

Pathway 3: Misconduct at work connected to the relationship (professional sphere)

Even if the relationship is private, workplace conduct can trigger discipline. Examples include misuse of corporate tools, public demonstrations affecting working conditions, pressure, retaliation after a breakup, or behaviour that undermines the team’s functioning.

Recent case law shows the Court remains strict about the “professional link” requirement. In Cass. soc., 26 March 2025, the Court indicated that a fact rooted in private life, even if it causes some disturbance, cannot justify disciplinary dismissal unless it is genuinely linked to professional life and constitutes a breach of a contractual obligation, and it rejected an overly broad approach that tried to create a professional link from minimal elements. Légifrance

IV. What an employer cannot do: dismiss “because of the relationship”

A. Dismissal based on intimate private life is a high-risk legal fault

Where the true reason for dismissal is simply the discovery of a consensual relationship, French courts treat this as an infringement of private life. In such cases, the dismissal can be null and void, not merely unfair.

Key case (nullity for infringement of private life):

In Cass. soc., 4 June 2025, no. 24-14.509, the Court held that the dismissal was null because the real cause was the discovery of the employee’s relationship with the company president and the ultimatum imposed by the president’s spouse (also a company executive) to terminate the employment. The Court ruled that the employer had to conclude that the dismissal was based on a fact relating to the intimacy of the employee’s private life, and therefore the dismissal was tainted by nullity. The Court itself pronounced nullity and awarded damages under Labour Code, art. L.1235-3-1, which expressly covers nullity in cases involving violation of a fundamental freedom.

This is the essential counterweight to the 29 May 2024 decision: France protects relationships as private life, but it does not protect professional conflicts of interest created by certain roles.

B. “Real and serious cause” remains the baseline for any dismissal

Independently of nullity issues, any dismissal for personal reasons must be justified by a real and serious cause (Labour Code, art. L.1232-1).

A relationship alone is not, in itself, a “cause réelle et sérieuse.”

V. Compliance design: how to draft a workable “workplace relationships” policy in France

A French-compliant framework usually relies on four pillars.

A. No blanket ban, but a conflict-of-interest mechanism

A company should avoid prohibiting relationships and instead require employees to manage professional conflicts. The trigger should be framed around objective risk: direct reporting lines, evaluation authority, HR/employee-representative negotiations, access to sensitive information, procurement decisions, and disciplinary power.

B. Limited disclosure, restricted audience, strict confidentiality

If a company introduces a disclosure process, it must remain proportionate. The policy should typically require only what is strictly necessary to manage the conflict (for example, “a relationship exists within a direct reporting line”), without demanding intimate details, and the information should be restricted to HR/Compliance on a need-to-know basis. This is how companies operationalise L.1121-1 proportionality.

C. Mitigation measures rather than punishment

The preferred response should be organisational: change reporting lines, remove one party from evaluation decisions, recuse an HR manager from negotiations, or alter sensitive responsibilities. Discipline should be reserved for situations involving misconduct, refusal to comply with conflict management, or integrity failures in sensitive roles (the 29 May 2024 logic).

D. Harassment prevention as a parallel, non-negotiable obligation

Relationships can degrade, and employers must be ready to address harassment allegations. The Labour Code defines moral harassment (art. L.1152-1) and sexual harassment (art. L.1153-1).

A well-designed policy should therefore include a pathway for reporting and investigating harassment independently of whether the parties were in a relationship.

VI. Litigation consequences and remedies: why employers should be cautious

The classification matters.

If the employer disciplines an employee based purely on private life, it risks losing on the merits and, in certain cases, facing nullity for violation of a fundamental freedom, with the specific statutory framework of L.1235-3-1.

If, however, the employer can show a role-based integrity problem (loyalty breach linked to HR/representative functions) or a properly evidenced objective disturbance, it may justify termination—subject to strict judicial scrutiny.

VII. Practical takeaways for employees

Employees should assume that their relationship is private, but they should also understand that certain professional positions create legitimate integrity constraints. The closer the relationship comes to a reporting line, HR authority, staff-representative negotiations, or decision-making power over the other party, the more the employer can legitimately intervene—provided it does so proportionately and without discrimination.

Conclusion

French law does not “ban office relationships.” It protects private life and refuses blanket corporate control over intimacy.

At the same time, French courts accept that relationships may become a legal issue when they intersect with contractual duties (loyalty/good faith), objective disturbance to the organisation, or misconduct in the professional sphere, and they sanction employers who dismiss employees simply because a relationship exists, potentially with nullity consequences.