NewsletterNewsletter No.198 – June 2025
UNFITNESS AND REDEPLOYMENT: The impossibility of redeploying an employee declared unfit for work exempts the employer from notifying the reasons opposing such redeployment.
An employee was dismissed after being declared unfit for work, with no possibility of redeployment. She brought a claim before the labor court to challenge the legitimacy of her dismissal for unfitness, particularly due to the absence of written notification of the reasons opposing her redeployment. Referring to Articles L.1226-2-1 and L.1226-2 of the Labor Code, the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) ruled that “the employer was not required to notify the employee in writing, prior to initiating the dismissal procedure, of the reasons opposing redeployment, (and) could not be reproached for not having sought a redeployment position within the company’s other establishments” (Cass., Soc., 11 June 2025, No. 24-15.297).
NULLITY OF DISMISSAL: A dismissal based on a matter pertaining to the intimate sphere of an employee’s private life is necessarily null and void.
An employee was dismissed for serious misconduct by the company’s CEO. The employee challenged the legitimacy of the dismissal, arguing that the decision stemmed from her intimate relationship with the company’s president, who was the spouse of the CEO. More specifically, the employee argued that the dismissal infringed on her private life and was therefore null and void. The Cour de Cassation upheld this argument and stated as a reminder, referring to Article 9 of the Civil Code, that “a reason drawn from the employee’s personal life cannot, in principle, justify disciplinary dismissal, unless it constitutes a breach of an obligation arising from the employment contract,” and that in this case, “the dismissal was based on a matter pertaining to the intimate sphere of the employee’s private life, and was therefore null and void” (Cass., Soc., 4 June 2025, No. 24-14.509).
DAILY SICKNESS BENEFITS: A temporary stay abroad during a period of sick leave may justify the suspension of daily sickness benefits.
An employee received nearly €2,000 in daily sickness benefits while temporarily staying in Tunisia during a period of sick leave. The health insurance fund sought reimbursement of this amount, citing the impossibility of carrying out a control during her stay. The lower court rejected the claim, holding that the trip had been authorized by the attending physician and that there was no medical reason opposing it. However, in a ruling dated 5 June 2025, the second civil division of the Cour de Cassation overturned the decision, reaffirming that, subject to applicable social security conventions and agreements, “when the insured person travels and stays temporarily outside France, it becomes impossible for the social security institution to carry out any control, and therefore to verify that the insured continues to meet their obligations. As a result, cash benefits from the health insurance system are not payable during such a stay” (Cass., Civ 2nd, 5 June 2025, No. 22-22-834).
EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY: The employer must ensure compliance with the occupational physician’s recommendations, including when the employee is on assignment.
In this case, an employee who had suffered a work-related accident had been declared fit to resume his position, subject to certain reservations. The employer reassigned him to another site, working with different clients. After another period of sick leave, the employee sought judicial termination of his contract, reproaching the employer with assigning him to clients who, for the most part, failed to comply with the occupational physician’s recommendations. He was ultimately dismissed on grounds of unfitness. Referring to Articles L.4624-3 and L.4624-6 of the Labor Code, the Cour de Cassation reaffirmed that the employer, who is bound by a safety obligation, must take into account the opinion of the occupational physician, including their instructions and recommendations, and that, in this case, it was the employer’s responsibility to ensure that the tour locations were actually equipped with electric trolleys (Cass. Soc. 11 June 2025 No. 24-13.083).
PERSONAL DATA: Professional emails sent and received by an employee constitute personal data which the employer must communicate to them upon request.
An employee suspected of moral harassment was dismissed following the conclusions of an internal investigation conducted in this respect. He challenged the legitimacy of his dismissal, arguing in particular that the employer had not communicated to him certain emails sent or received in the context of performing his employment contract. The Court of Appeal accepted this argument and ordered the employer to pay damages, noting that the latter had refrained from forwarding these elements from the employee’s professional mailbox without providing any legitimate reason. The Cour de Cassation confirmed this analysis and, referring to Articles 4 and 15 of the GDPR, held that “emails sent or received by the employee using their professional email account are personal data” and the failure to provide them, without legitimate reason, caused prejudice to the employee (Cass., Soc., 18 June 2025, No. 23-19.022).
VERBAL DISMISSAL: Depriving an employee on sick leave of all activities and means of access to the company may constitute verbal dismissal.
Following an occupational accident, an employee was placed on sick leave. The employer subsequently removed his company vehicle, access badges, and professional files. Considering that he had been verbally dismissed, the employee brought a claim before the labor court. The Cour de Cassation ruled that the simultaneous removal of the vehicle, badges, and files indeed constituted a unilateral, final, and unequivocal decision by the employer to terminate the employment contract, thus amounting to a verbal dismissal. Consequently, under Article L.1232-6 of the Labor Code, “the dismissal is necessarily without real and serious cause” (Cass., Soc., 11 June 2025, No. 23-21.819).
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE: A four-day period between the summons and the preliminary interview for a disciplinary sanction is sufficient.
By letter dated 19 February 2019, an employee was summoned to a preliminary interview scheduled for 27 February, which was then postponed. A new summons was sent by letter dated 27 February and received on 2 March, for an interview scheduled for 6 March. Following this interview, the employer notified the employee of a disciplinary suspension on 11 March 2019. On 6 June 2019, the employee brought a claim before the labor court, seeking, among other things, the annulment of the disciplinary sanction. The Cour de Cassation ruled that “although statutory provisions do not provide for a minimum period between the summons and the preliminary interview for a disciplinary sanction other than dismissal, the employee must be informed sufficiently in advance of the time and purpose of the interview in order to organize their defense.” In this case, the procedure was deemed compliant, since the employee had four days to prepare his defense, was aware of the reasons for the interview, of the fact that a disciplinary sanction was contemplated, and of the possibility of being assisted (Cass., Soc. 4 June 2025, No. 23-18.578).