Can you still fall in love at the office? The Bridget Jones test

In Bridget Jones’s Diary, Bridget and Daniel meet at work, openly flirt, go away together for the weekend, argue, and wage war in the open-plan office. At no point does the film question the possibility of such a workplace relationship—he is her direct superior—let alone the role of the employer.

In 2001, it was a romantic comedy. In 2026, it would immediately become a topic of discussion—not because love has become suspect, but because the social, managerial, and legal landscape has profoundly evolved.

One question therefore arises:

could Bridget Jones and Daniel Cleaver still flirt today?

The answer is clear: French law does not prohibit romantic relationships in the workplace.

The company is not a sanitized space, cut off from human relationships. An employee remains an individual entitled to a private life, including at the workplace. The employer may neither monitor, prohibit, nor require disclosure of a romantic relationship between colleagues.

This principle is grounded in Article L.1121-1 of the French Labour Code, which prohibits any restriction on individual freedoms that is not justified by the nature of the task to be performed and proportionate to the aim pursued. The French Supreme Court has long held that “an employee is entitled, even during working time and at the workplace, to respect for their private life” (Cass. soc., 2 October 2001, no. 99-42.942).

However, protective as it may be, this principle is not absolute. While the law does not sanction feelings, it may sanction certain behaviours that accompany them. A romantic relationship may, in specific circumstances, produce problematic professional effects: disruption of a department, tensions within teams, decisions perceived as biased, or harm to the collective. In such cases, it is not the love story that is at issue, but its concrete consequences within the company.

Case law therefore accepts that a matter arising from an employee’s personal life may justify termination of the employment contract when it creates an objectively characterized disruption within the company, assessed in light of the employee’s duties and the nature of the business (Cass. soc., 17 April 1991, no. 90-42.636, Painsec decision).

This is where Daniel Cleaver ceases to be merely a romantic comedy character.

In 2026, a relationship involving a direct reporting line is no longer viewed in the same way. The greater the responsibilities, the higher the expectations of loyalty, exemplarity, and neutrality—without even reaching the point of an abuse of hierarchical power that could amount to criminal harassment.

In certain precisely defined situations, disciplinary sanctions may be considered where the relationship, or the conduct resulting from it, reflects a breach of an obligation arising from the employment contract. This is particularly the case where an employee engages in persistent or inappropriate behaviour toward a colleague, affecting their psychological well-being or the serenity of the workplace, thereby breaching the employer’s duty of care (Cass. soc., 26 March 2025, no. 23-17.544).

Similarly, conduct stemming from the personal sphere may become sanctionable where it reveals a breach of the duty of loyalty, particularly for employees in managerial or representative roles, when the relationship maintained is likely to affect the proper performance of their duties (Cass. soc., 29 May 2024, no. 22-16.218)—in that case, a relationship between the HR Director and a trade union representative.

Faced with these risks, many companies are tempted to protect themselves through an internal policy. The question regularly arises: can a company policy prohibit romantic relationships? The answer is unequivocal: no. A general prohibition would constitute a disproportionate interference with employees’ private lives and expose the employer to significant legal risk, including the invalidation of any sanctions based on such a rule.

In practice, such a clause would be weakened—or even rendered ineffective—where it is not based on a clearly identified conflict of interest or an objectively demonstrated disruption.

Recent developments, including several highly publicized executive departures, nevertheless illustrate a growing temptation: that of absolute transparency, inspired by Anglo-Saxon models in which disclosure of personal relationships becomes an implicit governance norm. This approach, however, clashes with a French legal framework that is more protective of private life and less inclined to turn romantic relationships into matters of corporate control.

The French Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that an employer cannot impose a general obligation on employees to disclose their personal circumstances unless a direct link with their duties and a proven risk to the company’s interests can be demonstrated (Cass. soc., 10 December 2025, no. 24-17.316).

That said, a policy is not without value.

Provided it is designed as a risk-prevention tool rather than an instrument of moral judgement. A well-drafted policy can set out clear principles—respect, consent, loyalty—organise the management of sensitive situations, provide pragmatic solutions (reporting line changes, mediation, managerial support), and protect the company without intruding into private life. By contrast, an excessive, poorly calibrated, or overly prescriptive policy rarely protects the employer; it mostly creates tomorrow’s disputes.

In 2026, Bridget and Daniel could therefore still flirt at the office—provided they read the internal policy before ordering the first drink.