“In regards to the third reason for dismissal relating to surfing the internet for private purposes, Company A complains that the first judges dismissed this reason for lack of precision. It argues that the consultation of the Internet for purposes of a private nature is clear from the internet browser history detail which is part of the dismissal letter. For example, the appellant refers to the first ten pages of the browser history and to the 29th October 2010 to denounce the manifestly abusive conduct of the employee.
B challenges the the browser history joined to the dismissal letter sustaining that it doesn’t allow to distinguish between private and professional emails, that the connections qualified as « private » are the result of personal appreciation of the employer and that no evidence is provided in this direction and that no browser history in relation to the date of the 29th October 2010 is annexed to the letter of dismissal. In addition, navigating equipment and decoration sites would have nothing personal to the extent that her function as « technical designer-sales », led her to make plans and to conduct research on decoration in general to meet the needs of the company’s clients.
Examining the browser history attached to the letter of motivation it is possible to detect some connections to maternity clothes websites or private trips and a number of emails. This list does not, however, in the absence of further clarification as to the frequency and duration of these consultations, allow the judges to assess their excessiveness. It is therefore rightly so that the trial court dismissed this ground of lack of precision. » (C.S.J., 11/06/2015, n°40871 du rôle).