An employee may not steer clients toward a competitor before resigning (Camera di Commercio Francese in Italia, 22 July 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 1723 of 26 May 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) confirmed the liability of an employee who, prior to the termination of his employment relationship, had directed his employer’s clients to a competing business, thereby breaching the duty of loyalty set out in Article 2105 of the Italian Civil Code.

The case concerned the technical director of a dialysis department who, in the days immediately preceding his resignation, had contacted a number of patients and informed them of the possibility of continuing their treatment at another healthcare facility. The investigation further revealed that the employee had taken steps in advance to continue his professional activity with other operators in the sector and that numerous patients had decided to follow the medical staff by transferring to the new facility even before the resignation had been formally submitted.

The Rome Court of Appeal found that the employee had breached his duty of loyalty and ordered him to compensate the company for the damages suffered. In particular, the judges noted that the transfer of patients to the competing facility had been arranged while the employment relationship was still ongoing and that such conduct had resulted in a large portion of the clientele leaving the original facility.

The Supreme Court upheld that decision, reaffirming that the duty of loyalty is not limited to the prohibition of formally competing activities, but also requires employees to refrain from any conduct that may be contrary to their employer’s interests. According to the Court, this duty must be interpreted in light of the principles of fairness and good faith and may be breached even by conduct that is only potentially detrimental to the employer.

The Supreme Court further emphasized that the employee had begun arranging the transfer of patients to other facilities while still employed by the company and before formally submitting his resignation. Communications addressed to patients and organisational initiatives aimed at facilitating their transfer were therefore considered incompatible with the duty of loyalty owed by the employee during the employment relationship.

Lastly, the Supreme Court clarified that any delays in the payment of wages neither exclude nor justify a breach of the duty of loyalty. Even where resignation is imminent, employees remain bound by their duties of fairness and good faith until the employment relationship has effectively ended.

In conclusion, the ruling confirms that employees may not take advantage of an ongoing employment relationship to arrange the transfer of clients to a competitor. Preparatory activities intended to facilitate the movement of clients before the termination of employment may constitute a breach of the duty of loyalty and expose the employee to liability for damages towards the employer.