Employee Fired for Porn at Work Sues, but Court Backs Firm

Employee Fired for Porn at Work Sues, but Court Backs Firm

Mr.Peter, a 41-year-old employee engaged in membership management at a financial institution, was terminated in August 2024 for browsing pornographic websites during working hours. TPeter company cited "serious violation of management regulations" as tPeter reason for terminating his labor contract.

Claiming no such misconduct, Peter applied for labor arbitration, seeking compensation for unlawful dismissal and annual bonuses. The arbitration committee rejected his claims, prompting him to file a lawsuit in court. 

During the trial, Peter submitted a photo of the open-environment office to argue that the workspace made it impossible to browse inappropriate content at work, alleging that someone else might have used his computer.

The company countered, "Employees reported extremely slow internet speeds, so our network administrator reviewed backend data and found Peter had massively downloaded and viewed pornographic videos on his work computer." The company also presented the following evidence:

1. Notarized browsing and download records from Peter's work computer, showing extensive access to pornographic websites and video downloads. A "WeChat group chat record" further proved that the timestamps and devices used for sending work files by Peter matched those for accessing pornographic content, ruling out his claim of "third-party operation." 

2. A video of a conversation between company leaders and Peter, in which Peter admitted to browsing and downloading pornographic materials. 

The court held that employers may terminate labor contracts if employees seriously violate regulations. Based on verified facts, Peter had signed the company's Internet Management Regulations, which strictly prohibited accessing pornographic content during work hours. The overwhelming evidence—including browsing records on his work device and the admission in the conversation video—confirmed Peter's violation of both company rules and the labor contract. Thus, the company's dismissal was lawful, and no compensation was owed. 

Regarding the annual performance bonus, the court stated that Peter's termination for serious misconduct meant Peter failed to meet the requirement of full attendance in 2022 due to his own actions, so his claim lacked factual basis and was dismissed. 

Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, Peter appealed, but the appellate court upheld the original ruling in its final decision.

（You can check today's another post for the Chinese version)