Most spouses talk about work at home, sometimes sharing frustrations, office gossip and even sensitive details about their employers. But what happens when a workplace secret crosses that line and lands in a spouse’s inbox?
A global reproductive health organisation has lost a $530,679 (Sh68 million) counterclaim against an executive who shared confidential workplace emails with her husband during a dispute over her job.
The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) accused Aissata Tounkara Epse Sangare of breaching confidentiality and exposing the organisation to reputational damage, but the Employment and Labour Relations Court found no evidence that the disclosure caused the organisation any financial loss.
Sh9.3 million salary
The dispute began in April 2023 as Ms Sangare lost her job as head of operations at IPPF Africa in Nairobi.
She joined the organisation on June 14, 2021, earning a monthly salary of $72,110 (Sh9.3 million), plus other benefits. IPPF Africa says it is headquartered in Nairobi and works through member associations across sub-Saharan Africa.
Its website says the federation works in more than 150 countries and provides sexual and reproductive health services and advocacy.
On April 12, 2023, Ms Sangare received a letter declaring her position redundant and notifying her that her application for another position had not succeeded.
Her employer calculated separation benefits, but extended her service for six months on a non-renewable basis.
The next day, her husband emailed current and former staff, calling for investigations into alleged violations of staff rights and fair labour practices.
IPPF was offended by the email and began disciplinary proceedings against Ms Sangare, which culminated in summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
The court found that Ms Sangare had forwarded internal emails to her husband. They included strategy material, a confidential audit report, financial correspondence, expense reports, travel tickets and staff contact details.
Ms Sangare admitted forwarding the material without written authorisation. She argued that her husband was not a stranger to IPPF because he had maintained professional links with the organisation.
Evidence showed that the husband had assisted IPPF with its Nairobi office, helped with contacts and supported induction into local procedures. He had also recommended another employee for appointment. IPPF maintained that he was not its employee and remained an unauthorised third party.
Ms Sangare argued that the material formed part of whistleblowing about alleged financial mismanagement involving one of the employees. She cited concerns over housing benefits, use of an official vehicle and fuel, and failure to account for expenses.
IPPF said employees had a Safe Report system and other channels for raising concerns. Ms Sangare acknowledged knowing the policy but said the reporting channel did not work properly.
The court rejected the whistleblowing argument.
‘The claimant did not use the appropriate procedures for protected whistleblowing,’ Justice Onesmus Makau said, finding that sharing of confidential work-related information with her husband amounted to gross misconduct, therefore a valid reason warranting summary dismissal.
The court nevertheless recognised the personal circumstances surrounding the disclosures. Ms Sangare was facing the loss of her employment, which the judge noted affected her spouse and family.
‘An employee undergoing stress moments at work place is entitled to seek advice and emotional support from his/her spouse or other persons who can provide the required emotional support,’ the judge said.
Spousal support limits
‘I agree with her that losing a job is a matter that affects the spouse and the family at large as can be seen in the Redundancy letter dated April 12, 2023 and the computation of separation dues,’ the judge noted.
He, however, added that employees should use general information and avoid disclosing restricted confidential material.
The court found that the information shared included financial information, strategic plans, personnel data and internal business information not generally known outside IPPF.
Ms Sangare’s contract incorporated the IPPF Africa Regional Office Staff Handbook. The handbook prohibited employees from giving employment-related information to outside persons without written consent from the Regional Director.
It also classified unauthorised disclosure of confidential information as gross misconduct. The court also noted that the organisation’s confidentiality and information sharing policy provided that breach of confidentiality was a disciplinary offence which could result in dismissal.
‘The conduct of sharing the confidential information to a third party had the potential of exposing the first respondent (IPPF) to disrepute as observed by a former employee, one Mr Oumar Tiello in his email dated April 14, 2023. It follows that the respondent has proved by evidence that the summary dismissal of the claimant was grounded on a valid reason,’ Justice Makau said.
The court found that the employer had established a valid reason for summary dismissal. It then examined whether IPPF had followed a fair procedure.
The process, according to the Employment Act, included investigations, a notice to show cause, a disciplinary hearing, an appeal and a final decision. Ms Sangare challenged the panel’s composition, arguing that it lacked African regional representation.
She was represented by a lawyer during the disciplinary hearing. A different panel heard her appeal and upheld the dismissal.
She moved to court seeking $304,162 (Sh39.2 million) in employment-related claims, compensation for unfair termination, redundancy, repatriation and school costs. However, the court only awarded $7,414 (Sh956,406) for unused leave, plus interest and costs.
The court ruled that the dismissal was lawful. Ms Sangare lost the redundancy package of $89,730 because the redundancy had not taken effect before the misconduct dismissal.
She also lost a claimed $19,000 (Sh2.5 million) repatriation package and $92,770 (Sh12 million) in school fees costs. The court said she had not proved the school expenses and noted that those benefits were linked to termination without employee fault.
Sh68 million counterclaim
IPPF sought $530,679 (Sh68.2 million) through a counterclaim for breach of confidentiality and privacy.
The court accepted that the claimant had breached the confidentiality obligations by sharing her employer’s confidential information with her husband, but found no proof of actual loss.
It noted there was no evidence that partners or stakeholders had ended relationships with IPPF because of the disclosure.
The court drew a workplace and family boundary, ruling that an employee may seek personal advice from a spouse during a difficult employment dispute, but confidential documents remain subject to workplace rules.
The judgement also showed how a redundancy dispute can change course when an employer alleges misconduct before the redundancy takes effect.