Newsletter on health, safety and working conditions – France | Second semester 2025

This newsletter highlights six notable court decisions issued in recent months:

• An employee’s resignation, due to an excessive workload known to the employer, may be reclassified as a constructive dismissal (Cass. soc., November 13, 2025, No. 23-23.535).

An employee, a network administrator for nearly 20 years with the company, resigned after repeatedly alerting his employer about an unbearable workload. He provided various pieces of evidence supporting his claims, including medical reports, emails and comments made during his annual performance review.

Shortly after, he filed a claim with the labor court, arguing that his resignation was ambiguous and requesting its reclassification as a constructive dismissal due to the employer’s misconduct, which he sought to have treated as a dismissal without real and serious cause.

The Court of Appeal rejected his claim, ruling that the excessive workload was not a contemporaneous and decisive circumstance rendering the continuation of the employment contract impossible, a key condition for constructive dismissal.

The French Supreme Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that any resignation must be clear and unequivocal, and that a detailed dispute attributable to the employer may suffice to render the resignation ambiguous.

• When asked to recognize an employer’s gross negligence, the judge must verify whether the employer was aware of the danger and effectively implemented the necessary measures to protect the employee (Cass. civ., 2nd ch., October 16, 2025, No. 23-16.231).

An employee exposed to silica dust inhalation during his employment obtained recognition of the occupational origin of his silicosis. He then initiated legal proceedings to have his former employer’s gross negligence recognized, seeking full compensation for the harm he suffered, including an increase in his disability pension or lump-sum indemnity, as well as compensation for damages not covered by social security.

His claim was rejected on appeal. Although the employer was aware of the danger (the first condition for gross negligence), the judges found that the second condition – failure to implement adequate protective measures – was not met.

The French Supreme Court overturned this ruling, criticizing the appellate judges for failing to investigate sufficiently. It reiterated that the employer’s implementation of measures does not exempt them from liability; these measures must also comply with applicable regulations. In this case, it was established that at the start of the employment relationship, the employee worked without an appropriate mask or effective dust extraction system, constituting negligence by the employer.

• An employee dismissed for gross misconduct due to sexist and racist remarks cannot justify their behavior by claiming it was humorous or well received by colleagues (Cass. soc., November 5, 2025, No. 24-11.048).

A commercial director was dismissed for gross misconduct due to repeated remarks of a sexual, sexist, racist and stigmatizing nature regarding homosexuality, made during working hours and on company premises. These remarks, evidenced by emails, SMS and internal messages, undermined the dignity of other employees and offended some, breaching his obligations regarding workplace safety.

The employee contested the dismissal, arguing that the remarks were private and not intended to be public. He claimed, supported by witness evidence, that they were humorous and that he was appreciated by most colleagues.

The French Supreme Court rejected this argument, reaffirming that employees must ensure their own health and safety as well as that of colleagues and others in the workplace. It upheld the dismissal, ruling that the employee’s behavior at work harmed the mental health of others and made his continued employment impossible.

• An employer’s mere awareness of an employee’s request for recognition of an occupational disease does not automatically guarantee the protective status associated with occupational illnesses (Cass. soc., September 24, 2025, No. 22-20.155).

A plumber was placed on sick leave and, nine months later, dismissed due to disruptions caused by his prolonged absences, which required his permanent replacement. During this time, he had submitted a request to the French Social Security Authority for recognition of an occupational disease. He claimed protection against dismissal due to the professional nature of his illness and sought to overturn his dismissal.

The Court of Appeal ruled in his favor, stating that the employer’s knowledge of the request for recognition, evidenced by a letter sent to the French Social Security Authority contesting the request, required the application of protective measures for employees with occupational illnesses.

The French Supreme Court disagreed, clarifying that protection against dismissal applies only when the suspension of the employment contract is at least partially due to a work-related accident or occupational disease, and the employer was aware of the professional nature of the illness at the time of dismissal. Mere knowledge of the request for recognition does not guarantee protective status.

• The judge must assess the occupational nature of a disease to examine an employee’s compensation claims, even if the French Social Security Authority has already recognized it (Cass. soc., September 10, 2025, No. 23-19.841).

An employee working in a paper factory obtained French Social Security Authority (CPAM) recognition of the occupational nature of an illness. The employer contested this decision before the amicable appeals commission (CRA), which ruled in the employer’s favor. During this process, the employee was declared unfit for his position and dismissed for non-occupational unfitness to work. The employee challenged the dismissal, citing a violation of the protective status linked to the CPAM’s recognition of the illness as occupational.

The labor court ruled in favor of the employee, but the Court of Appeal overturned this decision. The employee appealed to the French Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate court ignored the CPAM’s decision.

The French Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that labor judges are independent in their assessment and are not bound by CPAM or CRA decisions regarding the occupational nature of a disease or accident. These decisions must be considered but are not binding on the judge, who retains the freedom to evaluate the facts independently.

• An employee on sick leave during paid vacation can request the postponement of those vacation days (Cass. soc., September 10, 2025, No. 23-22.732).

An employee filed several claims against her employer, including for unpaid vacation days. She argued that falling ill during her paid vacation entitled her to have the lost vacation days postponed.

While the French Labor Code is silent on this issue, the French Supreme Court had previously ruled that employees who fall ill during paid vacation cannot demand the postponement of interrupted vacation days. However, this position had been weakened since 2012 by the evolving case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which adopted a contrary stance. This divergence even led the European Commission to initiate infringement proceedings against France.

This case provided an opportunity to align with European law, which both the Court of Appeal and the French Supreme Court did. The high court recognized that the purpose of paid vacation – to allow employees to rest and enjoy leisure time – differs from that of sick leave, which aims to enable recovery. Consequently, the employee could claim the postponement of paid vacation days coinciding with her sick leave, provided she notified her employer of the sick leave.

This decision raises practical questions, including notification procedures, rules for postponing vacation days, payroll treatment of sick leave and the potential retroactivity of this new case law. These issues may require legislative clarification to ensure consistent application of the ruling.