The Danish Data Protection Authority issued a criticism to an employer for communicating the detailed reasons for the dismissal of a former employee to all staff and business partners, deeming this disclosure excessive and lacking legal basis.

Facts and context

The Danish Data Protection Authority (Datatilsynet) published on October 16, 2026, a decision issuing a criticism against an employer for illegally disclosing the reasons for the dismissal of a former employee.

The case originated from a complaint by a former employee regarding the communication by his former employer of the reasons for his dismissal, sent by email to all colleagues as well as selected business partners.

Reasons for the decision

• Lack of legal basis for disclosing the reasons for dismissal (Article 6 of the GDPR): The employer justified the communication of the reasons for dismissal by its legitimate interest in preventing the spread of rumors and preserving its business relationships, which would have been jeopardized by accusations from the former employee. The authority first excluded the qualification of data relating to criminal offenses, noting that the emails did not explicitly mention the commission of an offense or a complaint filing. However, when balancing interests, the authority considered that the employer's interest did not prevail over the rights and freedoms of the data subject. It emphasized that it is generally not necessary to specify the reasons for departure when informing third parties. In this case, the disclosure of detailed information about the reasons for dismissal to a wide circle of recipients was deemed to exceed what was necessary, rendering the processing unlawful.

Decision of the authority

Consequently, the authority issued a criticism against the employer for violation of Article 6(1) of the GDPR.

Lessons learned

This decision reminds that:

• Internal or external communication regarding an employee's departure must be limited to strictly necessary information, which generally excludes disclosing the reasons for dismissal.
• An employer's legitimate interest in countering rumors or protecting its reputation does not automatically justify disclosing prejudicial information about a former employee, especially when such information is detailed and shared with a wide audience.
• The scope of dissemination of information related to an employee's departure is a key criterion in assessing the lawfulness of processing; communication to all staff and external third parties is harder to justify than targeted information.