OD FLASH | The announcement of a planned termination followed by the continuation of the employment contract does not constitute a verbal termination

Court of Cassation, Labor Chamber, June 24, 2026 –  Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre sociale, 24 juin 2026, 24-19.759, Inédit – Légifrance

An employee, hired as a sales manager, was summoned on December 10, 2020, to a preliminary interview regarding a potential layoff for economic reasons. At the conclusion of the proceedings, she agreed to the professional security agreement, resulting in the termination of her employment contract on January 12, 2021.

Challenging her dismissal before the labor court, the employee argued, among other things, that she had been the subject of a verbal dismissal as early as November 12, 2020. In support of her claim, she submitted a WhatsApp exchange with her supervisor dating from that period, which indicated that the employer was considering terminating her employment contract for a reason that had not yet been determined at that time.

The Court of Appeals dismissed her claims. While it noted that the WhatsApp exchanges unambiguously revealed the employer’s intention to terminate the employee’s employment “unless it were for personal reasons,” it found that the employment relationship continued normally after these exchanges, until the economic layoff procedure was initiated. It concluded that no verbal termination with immediate effect could be established.

The employee filed an appeal to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the mere fact that the employer verbally announced its decision to terminate her employment was sufficient to constitute a verbal termination, regardless of whether the termination subsequently took place as part of a formal procedure.

The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It upheld the lower courts’ finding that the WhatsApp exchanges merely reflected the expression of an intention to terminate employment and not a final decision to immediately terminate the employment contract.

The High Court thus reiterates that merely informing an employee that their termination is being considered is not sufficient to constitute a verbal termination. In this case, the normal continuation of the employment relationship up until the employee was summoned to a preliminary interview, followed by the termination of the contract as part of a layoff procedure in accordance with the CSP, was incompatible with the existence of a verbal termination taking immediate effect.

This ruling reiterates that the mere announcement of a planned termination does not, in and of itself, constitute a verbal termination, as long as the employment relationship continues normally until termination, marked by the element that brings it into effect (in this case, acceptance of the CSP—in more general cases, the termination letter). In light of recent case law on the subject, the question of whether a verbal dismissal has occurred appears to be assessed more in terms of the practical conditions under which the employment relationship continues. It should be noted, however, that conversely, withdrawing a company vehicle and work-related equipment (keys, access badge) from an employee prior to their termination is far more likely to constitute a verbal termination (Cass., Soc., June 11, 2025, n° 23-21.819).