NewsletterNewsletter No.195 – March 2025
DISMISSAL FOR MISCONDUCT: An employee cannot be dismissed for misconduct if a deterioration in their mental state prevented them from recognizing the reprehensible nature of their actions.
In this case, an employee was dismissed because his employer accused him of sending threatening and humiliating messages to a colleague. Contesting his dismissal before both the first and second-instance courts, the employee argued that the alleged actions occurred while he was in a severely altered mental state, impairing his ability to discern the wrongful nature of his behavior. The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) confirmed that, given the employee’s condition, “the alleged misconduct could not be attributed to him“, depriving the dismissal of a real and serious cause (Cass. Soc. 5 March 2025, No. 23-50.022).
REMUNERATION AGREEMENT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED: Failure to monitor the workload of employees under a remuneration agreement based on the number of days worked (forfait-jours) does not, in itself, constitute automatic harm.
In these two cases, employees accused their employer of failing to fulfill their obligations regarding the monitoring and assessment of their workload while they were under a remuneration agreement based on the number of days worked. To claim compensation, they argued that they had suffered automatic harm, thereby exempting them from proving said harm. The employment division of the Cour de cassation stated as a reminder that such an employer’s failure “does not, in itself, give rise to a right to compensation” and that it is up to the employee to demonstrate the existence of a distinct harm resulting from such failure. Otherwise, the employee may only claim back payment for any overtime hours they may have worked (Cass. Soc. 11 March 2025, No. 24-10.452 and 23-19.669).
DISMISSAL PROCEDURE: The five-day period between the summons and the pre-dismissal meeting must exclude the day the registered letter was presented, as well as Sundays and public holidays.
In this case, an employee challenged his dismissal, arguing that he had not been given the required five-day period between the summons and the pre-dismissal meeting. The employer claimed having respected this timeframe by summoning the employee on Friday, December 22, for a meeting scheduled on Friday, December 29. However, the Cour de cassation stated as a reminder that “the employee must have a full five-day period to prepare his defense, excluding the day the letter was presented, as well as Sundays and public holidays, which are not considered working days.” In this instance, the period included a weekend and a public holiday (Monday, December 25), preventing the employee from benefiting from the required five working days. As a result, the failure to comply with this requirement, as stipulated in Article L. 1232-2 of the Labor Code, deprived the dismissal from justification (Cass. Soc. 12 March 2025, No. 23-12.766).
REDEPLOYMENT LEAVE: A company car must be returned for the portion of the redeployment leave that exceeds the notice period.
Employees sued their former employer for damages after losing access to their company car following their dismissal for economic reasons. They argued that not serving their notice period should not result in a reduction of the benefits they would have received had they worked through it. However, the employment division of the Cour de cassation ruled that when the duration of the redeployment leave exceeds the notice period, employees cannot claim the continuation of in-kind benefits beyond that period (Cass. Soc. 12 March 2025, No. 23-22.756).
DISMISSAL FOR ECONOMIC REASONS: A threat to economic competitiveness may justify a dismissal, even if it occurred prior to the dismissal and the company’s situation has since slightly improved.
In this case, employees contested the economic grounds for their dismissal for “reorganization necessary to safeguard the company’s competitiveness.” They considered that the economic rationale was unfounded as it had been assessed prior to the dismissal, and this while the company’s results had subsequently improved. They therefore appealed to the Cour de cassation after being dismissed at first instance and on appeal. Faced with this issue, the employment division of the Cour de cassation confirmed the reasoning of the trial judges, who had analyzed the company’s loss of market share over a period preceding the dismissal. Thus, it considered that facts prior to the dismissal could perfectly demonstrate “the existence of a serious threat weighing on the competitiveness of the business sector of the group to which the company belonged, justifying its reorganization to prevent future economic difficulties” (Cass. Soc. 12 March 2025, No. 23-22.756).
DISMISSAL FOR UNFITNESS: The absence of a redeployment proposal does not exempt the employer from the obligation to consult staff representatives regarding redeployment possibilities.
In this case, an employee suffered a workplace accident, followed by a relapse. Declared unfit by the occupational physician, he was dismissed for unfitness and the impossibility of redeployment. Contesting his dismissal, he argued that the employer should have consulted the staff representatives before initiating the dismissal procedure for unfitness. The trial judges rejected his claim given the absence of a proposal for redeployment. However, the employment division of the Cour de cassation overturned the appeal decision, stating as a reminder that “it was up to the employer to consult the staff representatives on the possibilities of redeployment before initiating the dismissal procedure“, including in the absence of redeployment possibilities (Cass. soc. 5 March 2025, No. 23-13.802).
TELEWORK: Employees who are not provided with a professional workspace or who have a telework agreement may claim a home occupation allowance.
In this case, an employee was declared unfit for his position, with no possibility of redeployment. He subsequently took the matter to the labor court, seeking various payments from his employer. Among his claims, the employee requested payment of a home occupation allowance, as he had been required to telework at the employer’s request, without having been provided with a professional workspace. The Cour de cassation reaffirmed that “the use of an employee’s home for professional purposes constitutes an intrusion into their private life, entitling them to compensation in this respect if no professional workspace is actually made available to them or if telework has been agreed upon.” The Court also added an important clarification: “the claim for this compensation, which covers the constraints arising from this mode of execution of the employment contract, is subject to the two-year limitation period under Article L. 1471-1, paragraph 1, of the Labor Code” (Cass. Soc. 19 Marh 2025, No. 22-17.315).