Some 30 employees who hold positions as staff representatives in a business consider themselves to be discriminated against in the course of their career development because of their trade union activities. They shall bring an action for interim measures before the tribunal prud’homme. They ask for information to assess their situation vis-à-vis other business employees in a comparable situation. And so prove union discrimination.

Both the male and the appellate courts uphold their claims. They order the business to provide them, on a periodic penalty payment, with certain documents and personal information relating to employees hired during the same period as the applicants. Among these data are the pay slips of each employee of the panel of comparators.

The employer challenges this decision before the Court of Cassation. It considers that the provision of personal data contained in salary slips (such as postal address, social security number or tax rate) was not indispensable for the exercise of the right to proof of the alleged discrimination. It constituted a disproportionate interference with the personal life of the employees concerned.

The Court of Cassation dismisses that appeal. It recalls that the right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right and must be considered in relation to its function in the business and balanced with other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

It adds that the right to evidence may justify the production of evidence which is prejudicial to personal life, on the dual condition that such production is essential for the exercise of that right and that the harm thereby caused is proportionate to the aim pursued.

Thus, the Court of Cassation confirms the reasoning of the Court of Appeal: the disclosure of the personal data concerned was indispensable for the exercise of the right to evidence and proportionate to the request of the applicants, who may be victims of discrimination.