Laden
SVG
Offen

Mann wurde entlassen, weil er zu lange auf der Toilette verbrachte

Dezember 3, 2025

  • English
  • 中文(简体)
  • Français
  • Deutsch
×
🎤

🔥 Should a company have the right to fire an employee for spending too much time in the restroom, even if the employee does not report a health issue?

Speak out your opinion
🎤

🔥 Should a company have the right to fire an employee for spending too much time in the restroom, even if the employee does not report a health issue?

Speak out your opinion

Today’s story comes from Suzhou, China, where a man was fired for spending long periods of time in the toilet while at work. Was it fair, or unfair? Let’s take a look.

The man, Mr. Li, worked for a technology company for many years. In the company rules, it clearly says:
If an employee leaves their work position without permission for too long, it is counted as being absent from work. And if this happens too often, the company can end the contract.

Between April and May of this year, Mr. Li stayed in the restroom 14 times for more than one hour each time.
In one case, he stayed almost four hours.
The company tried to contact him through WeChat, but he did not reply. They later checked security camera video to confirm what happened.

The company then decided to fire him.

Mr. Li argued that he had hemorrhoids and needed time in the restroom. He showed records of buying medicine and of a later surgery.
But there was a problem: he never told the company about his health issue at the time, and he did not ask for sick leave. His medicine and hospital records were also from after most of the restroom incidents. The court said that his excuse did not match the timeline.

The court also found that the company followed all legal steps and their employee handbook had been properly approved. So in the first trial, the court said the company acted legally.

Mr. Li appealed the decision, but during the second trial, the court encouraged both sides to settle the conflict peacefully. In the end, the company agreed to pay Mr. Li 30,000 yuan as a one-time support payment, and both sides accepted the agreement.

This case shows how courts try to balance law, fairness, and real-life difficulties when solving work disputes.


Abonnieren
Benachrichtigen Sie über
0 Kommentare
Älteste
Neueste Am meisten gewählt
Inline-Feedbacks
Alle Kommentare anzeigen
SVG
0
Würde mich über deine Gedanken freuen, Bitte kommentieren.X