NewsletterNewsletter No. 210 – June 2026
SEXUAL HARASSMENT: An employee who is exposed to a sexist working environment, without being personally targeted by sexually harassing conduct, may nevertheless be recognised as a victim of “ambient” sexual harassment under French case law.
An employee sought a declaration that her dismissal was null and void on the grounds that she had reported moral and sexual harassment. The Court of Appeal dismissed her claim after finding that she had not personally been subjected to acts of harassment. The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) took a different view and expressly recognised the concept of “ambient” sexual harassment, holding that “having regard to the repeated sexually and sexist-oriented remarks and conduct addressed to or displayed (…) in the presence of the employee and her colleagues, the employee had been compelled to work in a humiliating and degrading working environment, regardless of the fact that she had not been directly targeted by such remarks or conduct” (Cass. Soc. 28 May 2026, No. 24-22.754).
PREGNANCY: An employee is under no obligation to disclose her pregnancy, even where such disclosure would be necessary to protect her health.
An employee working in the chemical industry informed her employer that she was pregnant, specifying that she had already been pregnant for several months. Her employer dismissed her for gross misconduct on the grounds that her exposure to hazardous substances posed a risk to her health and could consequently give rise to the employer’s civil or even criminal liability, therefore calling into question the employee’s duty of loyalty. The Cour de cassation disagreed, reiterating that an employee is under no obligation to disclose her pregnancy and reaffirming that “any dismissal based, even in part, on an employee’s pregnancy is null and void, since such dismissal constitutes a breach of the principle of equal rights between men and women” (Cass. Soc. 3 June 2026, No. 24-22.719).
MUTUALLY AGREED TERMINATION: Offering a mutually agreed termination during sick leave does not, in itself, constitute discrimination on grounds of health.
An employee on sick leave received several proposals for a mutually agreed termination (rupture conventionnelle) before being dismissed for prolonged absence disrupting the proper functioning of both his department and the company. Considering his dismissal to be discriminatory, given the termination proposals he had received while on sick leave, he brought proceedings before the Employment Tribunal seeking a declaration that his dismissal was null and void. The Cour de cassation reiterated that “the employer bears the burden of proving that its decisions are justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination” and that a mutually agreed termination may validly be concluded “during a period of suspension of the employment contract due to sick leave“. On that basis, it quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision and held that “the fact that a mutually agreed termination is proposed during sick leave does not, in itself, constitute evidence suggesting the existence of discrimination on grounds of health” (Cass. Soc. 17 June 2026, No. 25-12.181).
PAID ANNUAL LEAVE: The rules governing the scheduling of annual leave also apply to carried-over annual leave.
An employee was on sick leave on several occasions between 3 December 2015 and 15 June 2017, and again from 8 January to 4 March 2018. Upon her return, her employer required her to take three weeks of paid annual leave in order to “clear her leave balance”. Her employment contract was terminated a few weeks later. She subsequently brought proceedings before the Employment Tribunal, seeking, among other claims, compensation in respect of paid leave, including for the leave she had been compelled by her employer to take. The Cour de cassation upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling that “carried-over and accrued annual leave entitlements are of the same nature, so that the rules governing the scheduling of annual leave also apply to carried-over annual leave”. The employer had therefore exceeded its managerial authority by unilaterally determining the dates of such leave. However, the Court of Appeal’s decision was quashed in that it had awarded the employee compensation in respect of the period of compulsory leave, “despite having found that the employee had benefited from three weeks of leave for which she had received paid leave compensation” (Cass. Soc. 17 June 2026, No. 25-15.138).
CSE EXPERT ASSESSMENT: The serious risk justifying the appointment of an expert must be assessed as at the date of the committee’s resolution.
Following the suicide of an employee, a company’s CSE resolved to appoint an expert to conduct an assessment on the grounds of a “serious risk”. The employer challenged that resolution before the President of the Judicial Court, who annulled the committee’s resolution on the grounds that, first, the existence of a “serious risk” had not been established; second, the “workload and psychosocial risks relied upon constituted potential rather than actual risks“; and third, the employer had, after the disputed resolution, implemented measures notably for the purpose of updating the DUERP. The Cour de cassation quashed that judgment, holding that “the existence of the serious risk justifying the appointment of an expert must be assessed as at the date on which the committee adopted its resolution” (Cass. Soc. 10 June 2026, No. 25-11.463).
MUTUALLY AGREED TERMINATION: The duration of unemployment benefits following an approved mutually agreed termination will be reduced from 1 September 2026.
Amendment No. 2 of 10 April 2026 to the Unemployment Insurance Agreement of 15 November 2024 has been officially approved. It provides for the entry into force of a reduction in the duration of unemployment benefits for employees whose approved mutually agreed termination takes effect on or after 1 September 2026. From that date, employees under 55 will be entitled to 15 months of unemployment benefits (compared with 18 months in the event of dismissal), while employees aged 55 and over will be entitled to 20.5 months of benefits (instead of 22.5 to 27 months in the event of dismissal) (Order of 19 June 2026 approving the provisions of Amendment No. 2 of 10 April 2026).
ASSOCIATIONS (NON-PROFIT ENTITIES): As an association is a private legal entity, any individual employed by it is employed under a private law employment contract.
An employee of a work integration association brought various claims before the Employment Tribunal. The association argued that the Employment Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the matter instead fell within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court. The Cour de cassation disagreed, holding that “an association established under the French Law of 1901 is, regardless of its operating methods and the source of its funding, a private legal entity. Any contract entered into by such an association with another private legal entity, even for the performance of a public service, is governed by private law” (Cass. Soc. 10 June 2026, No. 24-22.676).