This newsletter presents five notable court decisions handed down in recent months:
- Employees who stay abroad during their sick leave are not entitled to daily social security benefits (Cass. civ., 2nd ch., June 5, 2025, no. 22-22.834 FSBR).
In the event of sick leave or a non-work-related accident, employees may receive daily social security benefits (IJSS) paid by the primary health insurance fund (CPAM). The payment of IJSS is subject to various conditions, including undergoing medical examinations carried out by the social security control department. If these examinations become impossible, the CPAM is entitled to suspend payment of the benefits.
Until last year, the internal regulations of the CPAM required prior authorization to leave the district covered by the fund. The French Administrative Supreme Court overturned this requirement in November 2024, while reiterating that, even in the case of temporary relocation, the patient must be able to fulfil their obligations, in particular that of being available to the social security system for any checks.
In this context, the French Supreme Court was called upon to rule on the right of insured persons temporarily traveling abroad to continue receiving IJSS benefits.
An employee on sick leave had stayed in Tunisia for more than two months without prior authorization from her CPAM, but with the agreement of her doctor. The CPAM, informed of this stay, demanded repayment of the IJSS benefits paid to her and issued her with a summons. The insured person challenged this decision in court, based on the medical agreement and the fact that her treatment (wearing a compression belt) did not require her to be present for a CPAM check-up. The court ruled in her favor and canceled the order. The CPAM then appealed to the French Supreme Court.
The French Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court. It ruled that, since a temporary move outside France makes it impossible for the social security agency to carry out checks, thereby preventing verification of the insured person's compliance with their obligations, IJSS benefits cannot be paid during this stay, regardless of the authorization given by the attending physician. This rule applies subject to international agreements and European Union regulations.
- The dismissal of an employee whose management methods are characterized by the devaluation and deterioration of the working conditions of his subordinates is justified (Cass. soc., June 4, 2025, No. 23-20.600 D).
An employee who held the position of manager within the group risk department of an insurance company was dismissed for serious misconduct due to derogatory and disparaging remarks made to members of his team, such as: "I thought you were capable of better," "Oh, there you are" (addressed to a part-time employee) or "We know you, you're always behind on your work." According to the employer, this behavior had created a climate of fear within the team, degraded the working conditions of employees and revealed a lack of managerial support, constituting a breach of the employee's duty of care.
The manager challenged his dismissal before the Labor Court, arguing that the relationship difficulties cited were not such as to make it impossible for him to remain with the company, given his 28 years of service, the absence of previous disciplinary sanctions and the fact that his annual reviews had never noted any inappropriate behavior. He also invoked his right to freedom of expression to justify his comments.
However, the French Supreme Court upheld the dismissal for serious misconduct. It ruled that the manager's seniority, the absence of previous relationship difficulties or disciplinary sanctions did not exempt him from responsibility, given the impact of the alleged acts on the health of the employees under his authority, which made it impossible for him to remain in the company. The serious misconduct was therefore established.
The individual safety obligation incumbent on managers has been repeatedly highlighted by the French Supreme Court this year, emphasizing the need to pay particular attention to it.
- The employer must ensure that the position of the employee who is fit for work with reservations complies with the recommendations of the occupational physician in all locations where the employee is required to work, including at client companies (Cass. soc., June 11, 2025, No. 24-13.083 F-B).
An employee responsible for deliveries to supermarkets suffered an accident at work. During the return-to-work medical examination, the occupational physician declared him fit for work, provided that he did not pull or push loads without the aid of an electric trolley for five months. The employer assigned the employee to a new site equipped with electric pallet trucks, but did not check whether all the supermarkets on his route had this equipment. The employee then took the case to the Labor Court, requesting the judicial termination of his contract on the grounds that the employer had failed to comply with its safety obligation.
On appeal, the employer argued that it was not responsible for ensuring compliance with medical recommendations by third-party companies and that the employee should have reported the lack of electric pallet trucks. The trial judges ruled in its favor.
The French Supreme Court, however, overturned this decision. It pointed out that employers, who have a duty of care, must ensure that the measures recommended by the occupational physician are implemented in all places where employees work, including at client companies. They cannot adopt a passive attitude by assuming that the premises are compliant in the absence of complaints from employees.
- Failure to comply with daily rest periods automatically entitles the employee to compensation (Cass. soc., April 2, 2025, No. 23-23.614 FD).
The director of a business unit, subject to a fixed-day contract, acknowledged the termination of his employment contract and brought various claims before the Labor Court. In particular, he accused his employer of failing to take the necessary measures to ensure reasonable working hours and workload, ensuring a good distribution of work over time.
Among his claims, the employee sought damages for failure to comply with the requirement for 11 consecutive hours of daily rest. The Court of Appeals rejected this claim, finding that the employee had failed to prove either the existence or the extent of the harm caused by the failure to comply with the daily rest requirement.
The French Supreme Court overturned the ruling, pointing out that all employees must be given at least 11 consecutive hours of rest each day, and that this is an essential rule for protecting workers' health and safety. It specified that it is up to the employer to show that working time limits and ceilings are being respected. Consequently, failure to comply with the right to daily rest, where the employer cannot prove that it has been effectively implemented, automatically gives rise to a right to damages, without the employee having to establish the existence of any harm.
- An employer who, as soon as they are informed of an employee's suffering at work, takes the necessary measures to protect them, cannot be held liable for a breach of their safety obligation (Cass. soc., April 9, 2025, No. 23-22.121 FD).
An employee dismissed for incapacity and inability to be redeployed challenged her dismissal before the Labor Court. She claimed to have been the victim of psychological harassment and accused her employer of failing to fulfill its safety obligations. According to her, the difficulties she encountered with her line manager and the management she was subjected to caused her distress at work, which led to her incapacity.
The employer, for its part, claimed to have reacted immediately as soon as it was informed of the situation by implementing several measures:
- Monitoring of the employee by the occupational physician and human resources management;
- Launching an internal investigation to identify the causes of the difficulties mentioned and remedy them;
- Regular monitoring of the evolution of her situation;
- Provision of a psychologist;
- Under these circumstances, both the Court of Appeals and the French.
Supreme Court dismissed the employee's claims, ruling that the employer, by taking the necessary measures as soon as it became aware of her suffering at work, had fulfilled its safety obligation and could not therefore be held liable for failing to protect her physical and mental health.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
