Chinese Woman Fired Over Husband's Job at Rival Company; Court Orders Employer to Pay Over 3 Million Baht in Compensation
A Shanghai court ruled that a real estate company unlawfully fired an employee solely because her husband worked at a rival firm, ordering the company to pay over 3.2 million baht in compensation after finding no evidence of any actual brea
A Shanghai court has ordered a real estate management company to pay 690,000 yuan (approximately 3.2 million baht) in compensation to a female employee after ruling that her dismissal was unlawful. The company had terminated the employee, identified as Liu, citing concerns that her husband held a general manager position at a competitor and posed a "negative impact" to the organization.
Liu had worked for the company since 2006 before being fired in late 2023. She filed a labor arbitration claim in February 2024 seeking salary compensation, annual bonuses, and paid leave compensation totaling hundreds of thousands of yuan. The arbitration panel initially ruled in her favor, awarding 680,000 yuan in salary compensation and 10,000 yuan for unused leave.
The company challenged the decision in court, arguing that Liu, as operations manager, had access to sensitive company information that her husband could potentially exploit for competitive advantage. Liu's legal team countered that she never accessed any confidential information and held only a support role, and that her husband's employment title was merely listed for administrative convenience and was not a genuine position at a competing firm.
The Shanghai Suzhou District People's Court found the company lacked sufficient evidence to prove that Liu or her spouse had engaged in any breach of confidentiality or harm to the business. The court upheld the arbitration decision, declaring the termination unlawful.
The court further noted that it is common for spouses to work in different companies within the same industry. It emphasized that non-compete agreements can only be enforced against senior management, high-level specialists, or employees with specific duties to safeguard company secrets, and only when there is a clear written agreement in place.
The case has become a trending topic online, with public opinion divided between those sympathetic to the company's concerns and those advocating for stronger employee protections under labor law. Some internet users expressed understanding of the company's position, while others argued that while companies may dismiss employees, they must provide lawful severance compensation.
