French Supreme Court, Social Division, No. 23-23.549

In this case, an employee’s employment contract was suspended several times due to sick leave, maternity leave, and then parental leave. At the end of this period, she was declared fit to return to work by the occupational physician during her return-to-work medical examination. However, the employer decided to exempt her from work pending the results of an internal investigation conducted by staff representatives, who had been approached by several members of her team. The latter expressed concerns about a deterioration in their working conditions, citing psychosocial risks associated with the employee’s return to her position as team leader.

The investigation highlighted serious psychosocial risks for both the team and the employee if she were to return to her position. For its part, the labor inspectorate, to which the employee had referred the matter, confirmed in writing that a return to her former position appeared unlikely, emphasizing that she herself would be exposed to danger within the team due to these same psychosocial risks.

In accordance with the labor inspector’s recommendations, the employer offered the employee an equivalent position at another establishment, which she refused. She was therefore summoned to a preliminary interview with a view to her possible dismissal, during which she announced to her employer that she was pregnant again. She was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that it was impossible to maintain her employment contract.

The employee then brought the case before the labor court to seek the annulment of her dismissal, arguing that, in the absence of serious misconduct on her part, only a reason for the impossibility of maintaining the contract, independent of her conduct, could justify her dismissal. She claimed that there were no objective facts attributable to her that could be used to conclude that she was responsible for the deadlock situation invoked by the employer.

The French Supreme Court dismissed the employee’s appeal and ruled that the Court of Appeal had rightly dismissed the employee’s claim for annulment of the dismissal.

In accordance with its obligation to ensure safety and prevent psychosocial risks, the employer could not keep the employee in her position without exposing her and her colleagues to psychosocial risks. It had attempted to resolve the situation by offering her an equivalent position, corresponding to her skills and hierarchical level, in another establishment. However, this offer was refused by the employee.

Consequently, the decision to dismiss her was based on this refusal, which made it impossible to maintain the employment contract, and not on her pregnancy.

This ruling is particularly innovative in that, to our knowledge, it is the first time that the employer’s obligation to ensure safety and prevent psychosocial risks has taken precedence over maternity protection.


Browse More Insights

Sign up to receive emails about new developments and upcoming programs.

Sign Up Now