Litigation

In case of unsubstantiated abuse of a fundamental freedom relied upon to justify the dismissal of an employee, the dismissal is void even if other grounds could justify the termination of the employment contract.

In a decision issued on June 29, 2022, the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) applied for the first time the principle of “contaminating ground for dismissal” in the context of the use of freedom of expression.

Parent companies and large companies acting as principals may be held liable in the event of a breach of their duty of vigilance.

This duty of vigilance takes into account inter alia the risks of environmental damage associated with the operations of these companies, as well as those of their subsidiaries, subcontractors or suppliers.

The debate as to which court is competent to assess a vigilance plan has just been definitively settled: The Paris Judicial Court (Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris) has exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes over the duty of vigilance.

The employment contract of a part-time employee must fix the weekly or monthly distribution of working hours, failing which the part-time contract is to be reclassified as a full-time one.

In a decision dated November 17, 2021, the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) strictly applied the provisions of Article L.3123-6 of the French Labor Code that lists the mandatory information to be included in a part-time employment contract.

The change of an employee’s place of work at the same time as the implementation of a lay-off plan constitutes an abuse of the employer’s power of direction.

When a part-time employee exceptionally works more than 35 hours in a week, his/her contract must be reclassified as a full-time contract, even if the number of working hours provided for in his/her contract is fixed on a monthly basis.

In a decision issued on September 18 2019, the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) recalled that while disparagement which constitutes an act of unfair competition necessarily results in a business disruption, a claim for compensation must be dismissed wherever the existence of the alleged damage is not duly established.