In the case of a male employee who "mistakenly" entered the women's toilet for 10 seconds and was immediately dismissed by the company, the court's decision will be based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to whether the employee's behavior violated the company's rules and regulations, and whether the company's decision to dismiss the employee was reasonable and lawful.
First, the employee's behavior may indeed violate gender segregation rules in public places, as well as the company's code of ethics and conduct. However, this does not necessarily mean that the employee should be fired immediately. The court may consider whether the employee's actions were intentional, whether they caused substantial harm, and whether he expressed remorse for his actions and took corrective measures.
Second, a company's decision to terminate an employee needs to be based on reasonable rules and regulations and legal procedures. If the company's rules and regulations clearly stipulate how to deal with similar behavior, and the provisions are in accordance with the relevant provisions of the labor law, then the company's dismissal decision may be upheld by the court. However, if the company's dismissal decision is too harsh, or if the lawful procedure is not followed, the court may find the decision unreasonable and thus invalidate the dismissal.
Finally, the court will also take into account the principles of fairness and impartiality, as well as the need to protect the rights and interests of employees, when making a judgment. Therefore, even if the employee's behavior is improper, if the company's dismissal decision is too harsh, the court may rule in favor of the employee.
In general, the outcome of this case will depend on the specific circumstances and the court's interpretation. Therefore, for similar incidents, the best practice is to comply with the rules of public places and the company's rules and regulations, and at the same time, the company should also follow the principles of legality, fairness and reasonableness when dealing with similar incidents.