By Johann Sultan, partner, Natacha Meyer and Louis Beurtheret, associates<\/em><\/p>\n Redundancy:<\/strong> An employee\u2019s acceptance of the Contrat de s\u00e9curisation professionnelle<\/em> (CSP \u2013 professional security contract) is only valid if the employer has previously handed them a written document clearly setting out the economic grounds justifying the contemplated dismissal. Failing that, the termination is deemed to lack genuine and serious cause<\/em>, rendering the dismissal legally unfounded. (French Supreme Court \u2013 Labour Chamber, 26 March 2025, No. 23-21.099). In practical terms, employers would be well advised to keep written proof of the delivery of this explanatory note.<\/p>\n Dismissal:<\/strong> It is not mandatory to specify the exact dates of the alleged misconduct in the dismissal letter, provided that the grounds invoked are precise and factually verifiable. (Cass. Soc., 6 May 2025, No. 23-19.214). However, as a matter of good HR practice, employers should remain meticulous when drafting termination letters to avoid any ambiguity.<\/p>\n Moral Harassment:<\/strong> Merely establishing that moral harassment occurred is not enough to trigger the nullity<\/em> of a dismissal. There must be a clear causal link<\/em> between the harassment and the termination of the employment contract. (Cass. Soc., 9 April 2025, No. 24-11.421). This decision serves as a clarification by the Court to dispel prior uncertainty on the matter.<\/p>\n Non-Compete Clause:<\/strong> Where redeployment of an unfit employee is impossible, the employer must formally waive the non-compete clause at the latest on the employee\u2019s actual departure date<\/em>. (Cass. Soc., 29 April 2025, No. 23-22.191). The Supreme Court reaffirms its strict approach even when the waiver of the notice period arises from the occupational physician\u2019s opinion rather than the employer\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n Unfitness:<\/strong> Challenging a medical unfitness decision before the Labour Court (Conseil de prud\u2019hommes<\/em>) does not bar the employer from proceeding with the dismissal. However, if the unfitness decision is later overturned, the termination will be considered devoid of just cause<\/em>. (Cass. Soc., 19 March 2025, No. 23-19.813).<\/p>\n Damages:<\/strong> In a series of four rulings handed down on 11 March 2025, the Court of Cassation reiterated that an employer\u2019s breach alone does not automatically entitle an employee to compensation \u2013 actual damage must be proven<\/em>.<\/p>\n Invalid Working Time Arrangements:<\/strong> The mere finding that a forfait jours<\/em> agreement (fixed working days arrangement) is irregular or void does not entitle the employee to damages. The burden is on the employee to show that they suffered harm. (Cass. Soc., 11 March 2025, Nos. 23-19.669 and 24-10.452)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Paid Leave:<\/strong> An employer\u2019s failure to ensure that paid leave is taken does not automatically result in liability. The employee must show specific harm beyond what is covered by the compensatory indemnity. (Cass. Soc., 11 March 2025, No. 23-16.415)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Night Work:<\/strong> Breach of the obligation to provide medical monitoring for night workers does not, in and of itself, justify compensation. Again, the employee must establish actual harm. (Cass. Soc., 11 March 2025, No. 21-23.557)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n These clarifications are particularly relevant in the context of employment litigation before the Labour Courts.<\/p>\n Conversely:<\/strong><\/p>\n Invasion of Privacy:<\/strong> In stark contrast, where an invasion of privacy is established, harm is presumed<\/em> and gives rise to an automatic right to compensation. An employee was awarded damages after it was found that she had not been informed of the use of phone monitoring and video surveillance systems in the workplace \u2013 a violation of her right to image and private life<\/em>. (Cass. Soc., 6 May 2025, No. 23-23.294)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Key Employment Law Developments \u2013 June 2025 By Johann Sultan, partner, Natacha Meyer and Louis Beurtheret, associates Redundancy: An employee\u2019s acceptance of the Contrat de s\u00e9curisation professionnelle (CSP \u2013 professional security contract) is only valid if the employer has previously handed them a written document clearly setting out the economic grounds justifying the contemplated dismissal. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":9371,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[62,76],"class_list":["post-9234","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-non-classifiee","tag-johann-sultan-en","tag-social-en"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lerins.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9234","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lerins.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lerins.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lerins.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lerins.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lerins.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9234\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lerins.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9371"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lerins.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lerins.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lerins.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n