A recent legal case in Jiangsu, China has attracted attention, when an employee was fired by his employer for allegedly walking 16,000 steps while on sick leave. The company claimed that the employee’s activity levels were at odds with his health-related absences, suggesting he had misrepresented his condition. However, a court ruled against the company, ordering them to pay damages of 118,779 yuan (Rs 14.78 lakh) and confirming the validity of the employee’s sick leave.

The incident was widely discussed as it brought to light the increasing use of digital monitoring devices by employers to track the physical activity of employees. In this case, the employer used data related to the employee’s step counts as grounds for dismissal, arguing that such activity was inconsistent with being unfit for work. However, the court determined that the evidence provided by the company was insufficient to prove dishonesty or a violation of sick leave protocols. The case attracted public attention not only for the amount of compensation awarded, but also for the precedent it sets regarding the use of digital data in employment disputes.

Illegal use of personal data by the company

The employee’s dismissal highlighted the ongoing debate over privacy and the use of personal data in employment decisions. Employers’ reliance on step-tracking data reflects a broader trend of companies leveraging technology to monitor workforce behavior. This has raised concerns among privacy advocates and legal experts, who argue that such practices may violate employees’ rights outside the workplace. The increasing prevalence of wearable devices and smartphone applications has made it easier for employers to collect personal health and activity data, raising questions about the boundaries of acceptable workplace surveillance.

Chinese media reports indicate that the court found the dismissal illegal, ruling that step counts alone were not sufficient evidence of misconduct. The judgment confirmed that the employee’s sick leave was valid and compensation should be provided for unlawful dismissal. This decision was seen as an important statement regarding the limits of employer surveillance. In its decision, the Court stressed the need for employers to present comprehensive evidence rather than relying on isolated metrics such as step counts when challenging the validity of sick leave.

The case has sparked widespread debate about the potential for overreach in digital workplace surveillance in China. Many observers point to the risks of drawing conclusions about the health or integrity of employers based solely on data generated by wearable devices or smartphone applications. Critics argue that such evidence may be misleading, as elevated step counts do not necessarily indicate illness or lack of readiness to work. In some cases, individuals may be advised by doctors to engage in light physical activity as part of their recovery, further complicating the interpretation of such data.

Employee rights advocates have noted that the outcome could set a precedent for similar situations involving the use of personal data. The Court’s decision underlines the importance of respecting established procedures for sick leave and ensuring that disciplinary action is based on a comprehensive and fair assessment rather than isolated metrics. Legal experts have suggested that employers should develop clear internal policies regarding the collection and use of employee data to avoid future disputes and protect the interests of both parties.

Workplace privacy has become an important issue as digital tracking tools become more common. The Jiangsu case illustrates the tension between employers’ desire to verify the validity of sick leave and the need to protect individual privacy. Legal experts suggest that clear guidelines and rules are necessary to balance these interests going forward. As technology continues to evolve, both employers and employees will need to stay informed about their rights and responsibilities related to data privacy in the workplace.

This decision may influence both employers and employees in China to re-examine their approach to sick leave verification and digital monitoring. By confirming the legality of the employee’s absence and awarding compensation for unjust termination, the Court has reinforced the principle that workplace discipline should be based on fair and transparent procedures. This case serves as a reminder that technology must be used responsibly and employee rights must be protected even when new methods of surveillance are adopted.