NewsletterNewsletter No.214 – October 2026
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT: An employee’s retirement precludes reinstatement following a dismissal declared null and void.
An employee who had been dismissed for moral harassment obtained a declaration that his dismissal was null and void and consequently sought reinstatement. However, by the date on which the dismissal was declared null and void, he had claimed his retirement pension. The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) held that an employee who has claimed their retirement pension has definitively left the workforce, “thereby making their reinstatement impossible”: retirement therefore precludes the employee from returning to their former position. Nevertheless, the employee is not deprived of all entitlement to compensation. They may claim compensation for loss of earnings (indemnité d’éviction), corresponding to the remuneration they would have received had they remained with the company. This compensation covers only a limited period, running from the date of dismissal until the date of retirement, meaning that any salary they might have received thereafter is not compensable (Cass. Soc. 7 October 2026, No. 25-22.243).
HEALTH AND SAFETY: A claim for damages for failure to prevent moral harassment is subject to a two-year, rather than a five-year, limitation period.
A female employee who had been recruited as a fashion designer and subsequently dismissed on grounds of incapacity following a period of sick leave brought a claim before the employment tribunal, alleging moral harassment. Among other things, she sought damages for the employer’s failure to comply with its duty to prevent such conduct. In finding the claim admissible, the lower courts considered that it pursued the same objective as a claim for damages arising from the moral harassment itself, namely compensation for harm resulting from a situation of harassment, and accordingly applied the general five-year limitation period under ordinary law. Wrongly so, according to the Cour de cassation, which reiterated that the duty of prevention “is distinct from the prohibition of acts of moral harassment” and must not be conflated with it. Accordingly, a claim based on the employer’s failure to comply with this duty related to the performance of the employment contract and is subject to the two-year limitation period laid down in Article L. 1471-1 of the French Labour Code. Employees must therefore act more promptly to bring claims based on such a breach, while employers may rely on a shorter limitation period (Cass. Soc. 7 October 2026, No. 25-11.362).
DISCRIMINATION AND DISABILITY: Failure to refer a case to SAMETH (former service that helped employers identify and implement workplace adjustments to support employees with disabilities and help them remain in employment. It is now part of Cap emploi) in the absence of any request for workplace adjustments, does not give rise to a presumption of discrimination.
A female employee who had been declared unfit for her role was dismissed on grounds of incapacity and impossibility of redeployment. However, she did not inform her employer of her status as a disabled worker until after the preliminary dismissal meeting. In declaring the dismissal null and void, the Court of Appeal noted that the employer had not referred the matter to the SAMETH and had provided no evidence of any further redeployment efforts. The Cour de cassation overturned this decision and stated as a reminder that the court must first determine whether the employee has presented evidence giving rise to a presumption of discrimination, such as the employer’s refusal to implement “concrete and appropriate reasonable adjustments” requested by the employee or recommended by the occupational physician. Only where such evidence is present must the employer justify its refusal on objective grounds. In this case, however, the employee had neither contacted the SAMETH nor requested any workplace adjustments. She had therefore presented no evidence giving rise to a presumption of discrimination, and the lower courts could not find that discrimination had occurred solely on the basis that the employer had failed to refer the matter to that organisation (Cass. Soc. 14 October 2026, No. 25-13.602).
DISMISSAL ON ECONOMIC GROUNDS: A decline in turnover does not, in itself, establish economic difficulties.
An asset management company had dismissed two analysts on economic grounds, citing a decline in its turnover over two consecutive quarters, the minimum period stipulated by Article L. 1233-3 of the French Labour Code for a company of that size. The Court de cassation nevertheless held that, even where the decline has been established over the statutory period, “the court must still, having regard to all the evidence before it, determine whether that trend is sufficiently significant to establish economic difficulties capable of justifying the dismissal” (Cass. Soc. 7 October 2026, No. 25-10.107).
DAMAGE AND THEFTS ON 17 AND 18 OCTOBER: The Urssaf and the Ministry of Labour are supporting businesses affected by the unrest.
Following the damage and thefts committed on 17 and 18 October 2026 on the sidelines of demonstrations, the Government announced several support measures for affected businesses and professionals. The Urssaf and the Social Protection Council for the Self-Employed (CPSTI) accordingly set up an exceptional support unit, enabling the businesses concerned, in particular, to defer payment of their social security contributions. In addition, the Ministry of Labour announced a “zero out-of-pocket cost” scheme for companies with fewer than 250 employees that are required to use the short-time working scheme following damage linked to these events. These measures are intended to ease the cash-flow pressures faced by affected businesses and eliminate the cost of short-time working (Ministry of Labour press release, 20 October 2026).
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT: An employee’s private conduct may justify dismissal if it causes a sufficiently serious and objectively established disruption within the company.
A branch manager responsible for supervising around 40 employees had been dismissed for having secretly maintained romantic relationships with two female employees at the branch. Challenging his dismissal, he argued that it was based on a matter relating to his private life and that neither the reactions of third parties nor short periods of sick leave could establish an objective disruption within the company. The Cour de cassation dismissed his appeal and reiterated that, although conduct relating to an employee’s private life cannot, in principle, justify dismissal, the position is different where it causes “a sufficiently serious and objectively established disruption within the company”. In this case, the relationships in question had resulted in two department heads taking sick leave simultaneously, owing to fears of professional repercussions, and had undermined the manager’s authority. These circumstances were sufficient to establish such a disruption (Cass. Soc. 21 October 2026, No. 24-22.661).