OD FLASH | Dismissal of an employee who has suffered an accident at work: as long as the suspension of the employment contract has not ended, only serious misconduct or the impossibility of maintaining the employment contract can justify dismissal.

Court of Cassation, Civil Division, Social Chamber, October 22, 2025, 24-15.316, Unpublished – Légifrance

When an employee does not attend the return-to-work medical examination following a period of absence due to an occupational accident, the suspension of their employment contract remains in effect. In other words, until this examination takes place, the employee continues to benefit from the special protection associated with occupational accidents or occupational diseases, and from all related consequences. In this situation, if the employer wishes to dismiss the employee while the employment contract is still suspended, the decision may only be based on gross misconduct or on the impossibility of maintaining the contract for reasons unrelated to the accident (French Labor Code, Art. L.1226-9). But what happens when an employee simply fails to attend this medical examination? The employment contract remains suspended, and the employee’s protection persists. This is the position adopted by the Court of Cassation in its decision of 22 October.

In the case at hand, an employee had suffered a workplace accident, which led to the suspension of his employment contract. The employer proceeded to dismiss him. Following a court decision ordering his reinstatement, the employer instructed him to attend a return-to-work medical examination. The employee did not attend the appointment. The employer considered this a breach of obligations and dismissed him again for “real and serious cause.” The employee challenged the dismissal, arguing that it was null and void, given the protection attached to the suspension of the contract in the event of an occupational accident.

The Court of Appeal of Cayenne held that the dismissal was justified due to the employee’s unjustified failure to attend the examination and the resulting obstruction of the procedure. However, the French Supreme Court overturned this ruling. It reaffirmed that the employee still benefits from the statutory protection as long as the medical return-to-work examination has not taken place, regardless of the reasons why it did not occur. Therefore, only gross misconduct or the impossibility of maintaining the employment contract could have justified the dismissal. It is now up to the Court of Appeal on remand to draw the consequences — namely, the nullity of the dismissal.