A man was dismissed by the Toulouse administrative court of appeal in mid-March. He took legal action after losing his job in a municipality in Aude for consulting pornographic sites at his workplace.
Consulting pornographic sites in the office is a prohibited practice, even in the absence of regulations specifying it. In any case, this is the opinion of Toulouse Administrative Court of Appealwhich issued a decision in this direction in mid-March.
The story dates back to 2018. On this date, a municipal employee working in the municipality of Montredon-Corbières in Aude was subject to disciplinary proceedings. A few months earlier, during a trivial computer maintenance, the mandated technical teams discovered that the man who works from this device regularly consults pornographic sites. “The two most consulted sites on the computer station used by the person concerned are of a pornographic nature, followed by commercial sites”, specifies the judgment of the Toulouse administrative court of appeal, which adds that “very few sites consulted on this workstation are likely to be of a professional nature”.
Consequence: the Aude municipal employee is fired. Outraged by this punitive measure, the civil servant decided to take the case to court in order to regain his job. After years of legal battle, on March 14, the administrative court of appeal of Toulouse dismissed it. In her decision, she indicates: “this frequent and recurring use for personal purposes and during her working time of a computer system made available to her by her employer is established. It is likely to justify a disciplinary sanction, even though that the municipality did not have internal regulations governing the use of computer tools. A frequency of viewing which may have altered his professionalism at work”.
Harassment and questionable bills
In addition to these consultations of inappropriate sites, the former municipal employee was also dismissed for having repeatedly sent messages of a sexual nature to his colleagues (story which ended with a complaint closed without further action).
Finally and to crown it all, in its decision, the Court of Appeal specifies that this man has for several months, even years, inadvertently charged the municipality for which he worked with the water and sanitation bills of his main and secondary residence. “These facts have created financial damage for the municipality and are likely to alter its confidence in its agent. They are at fault and likely to justify the pronouncement of a disciplinary sanction”, concludes the judicial body. .
