Key takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n An employee may, in principle, carry on another activity alongside their employment (for example, through a micro-enterprise), provided that it does not disrupt the performance of the employment contract and does not harm the employer\u2019s legitimate interests.<\/p>\n Where difficulties begin is when the side activity operates in the same market<\/strong>, targets a similar customer base<\/strong>, or offers similar services<\/strong>. In that case, the issue is no longer mere \u201cmultiple activities\u201d: it is competition<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Employment law requires performance of the contract in good faith<\/strong>. In practical terms, this translates into a duty of loyalty: the employee must avoid conduct that creates a conflict of interest with their employer (competition, diversion of customers, use of internal information, harm to reputation, etc.).<\/p>\n An important point: this duty exists even if the contract contains no specific clause<\/strong>. In other words, the absence of a clause does not mean \u201ccomplete freedom\u201d.<\/p>\n In litigation, the central question often becomes: is the side activity truly competing<\/strong>? Judges look at the reality of the facts, including:<\/p>\n An activity may therefore appear \u201csmall\u201d or \u201coccasional\u201d yet still be characterised as competing if it is positioned on the same ground as the employer.<\/p>\n In the case at hand, an employee had created, during the employment relationship, a sole trader\/micro-enterprise offering services in a field similar to that of the employer. The Court of Appeal had downplayed the impact of this activity, noting in particular its residual nature and the absence of a non-compete clause.<\/p>\n The Court of Cassation overturns that reasoning: where the side activity is competing<\/strong> during performance of the contract, certain arguments frequently relied upon become irrelevant<\/strong>, for example:<\/p>\n The message is clear: the mere fact of creating and carrying on a competing activity during the contract<\/strong> can constitute a serious breach of the duty of loyalty, capable of justifying dismissal for gross misconduct<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Good to know:<\/strong> gross misconduct is misconduct that makes it impossible to keep the employee in the company, including during the notice period. In this type of case, the debate therefore focuses on the characterisation of competition<\/em> and the reality of the activity<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A non-compete clause<\/strong> generally applies to the period after<\/strong> termination of the contract, and is subject to a strict legal regime (validity conditions, proportionality, financial consideration, etc.).<\/p>\n Conversely, the duty of loyalty<\/strong> applies during<\/strong> performance of the contract, without needing to be expressly provided for. This is precisely why the absence of a non-compete clause does not protect an employee who carries on a competing activity during the contract.<\/p>\n If you suspect a competing activity, the key is to respond methodically: intuition is not enough. The strength of the case often depends on evidence<\/strong> and legal characterisation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Warning: in disciplinary matters, timing and the drafting of the allegations are decisive. A prior audit often helps avoid a challenge before the French Labour Court (Conseil de prud\u2019hommes) based on inadequate legal characterisation or weak evidence.<\/p>\n Starting a side business is possible\u2026 provided you do not step onto the employer\u2019s ground. Before launching an activity, it is useful to ask yourself a few simple questions:<\/p>\n If in doubt, it is better to secure things upfront<\/strong> (legal analysis, precise scoping of the offering, differentiation of the target) rather than expose yourself to disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n And if proceedings begin, it is essential to react quickly: an action challenging termination of the contract is in principle subject to a limitation period of 12 months<\/strong> from notification of the termination.<\/p>\n The 14 January 2026 case law forms part of a clear trend: the Court of Cassation protects the relationship of trust during performance of the contract. A side activity is not a problem in itself; it is a competing activity<\/strong> that causes the breakdown.<\/p>\n Whether you are an employer<\/a> (risk prevention, disciplinary management) or an employee<\/a> (starting a business, securing your project), a quick legal review can prevent serious consequences: Contact our firm<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Understanding multiple activities in light of the duty of loyalty<\/h2>\n
1) Multiple activities: a generally accepted principle, but not a \u201cright to compete\u201d<\/h3>\n
2) The duty of loyalty: a continuous requirement during the contract<\/h3>\n
3) Competing activity: how to identify it in practice<\/h3>\n
\n
4) What the decision of 14 January 2026 (No. 24-20.799) says: competition may be enough to constitute gross misconduct<\/h3>\n
\n
5) Don\u2019t confuse: duty of loyalty (during the contract) and the non-compete clause (after the contract)<\/h3>\n
6) From the employer\u2019s perspective: securing the situation (and avoiding procedural missteps)<\/h3>\n
\n
7) From the employee\u2019s perspective: how to start a business without putting yourself at risk<\/h3>\n
\n
8) Conclusion: \u201cmultiple activities\u201d yes, competition no<\/h3>\n
\n
![\"Holding](\"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Holding-multiple-jobs-and-the-duty-of-loyalty.png\")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"