Phillipe K. v. Cathnet-Science
Court de Cassation, Chambre Sociale
Appeal Reference No. 03-40017 (2005)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Cathnet-Science (defendant) hired Phillipe K. (plaintiff) as a drafter. Four years later, Cathnet-Science representatives found erotic photographs in Phillipe K.’s desk drawer. As a result of that finding, the representatives then searched Phillipe K.’s computer. Under a file labeled personal, the representatives found many files that were unrelated to Phillipe K.’s duties as a drafter. Cathnet-Science was able to conduct the search without a password because the computer was not protected. But Cathnet-Science did not do the search in Phillipe K.’s presence or inform Phillipe K. of the search. In response to these findings, Cathnet-Science terminated Phillipe K.’s employment. Phillipe K. sued Cathnet-Science. The lower courts upheld the dismissal. In particular, the court of appeal reasoned that the search of Phillipe K.’s computer was not the result of a systematic policy by Cathnet-Science that allowed for unlimited searches of employees’ computers. Instead, the search was done in response to the photographs that had been found in Phillipe K.’s desk. Those photographs, according to the court of appeal, created exceptional circumstances that enabled the employer to search the computer. Moreover, there was no password required. Phillipe K. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sargos, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
