France (EN) 
US 
Canada 
Mexico 
Germany 
UK 
Cass. Soc. January 21, 2026, No. 24-16.240
An employee dismissed for misconduct sought damages on the grounds of procedural irregularity, arguing that the summons to the preliminary interview, delivered by hand, had not been properly served because it did not bear the signature required by Article L. 1232-2 of the Labor Code.
The Lyon Court of Appeal rejected his claim, after finding that the employee had indeed received the summons and had actually attended the preliminary interview, without contesting the date or the holding of the interview.
The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It pointed out that the purpose of the method of summoning the employee to the preliminary interview prior to dismissal, by registered letter or by hand-delivered letter against a release form, is solely to prevent any dispute over the date of the summons. It is therefore a legal means of proof and not a substantive formality conditioning the regularity of the procedure.
Since the employee did not dispute having received the summons or having attended the preliminary interview, the absence of a signature on the receipt provided by the employer was irrelevant. The trial judges could conclude, without violating Article L. 1232-2 of the Labor Code, that the dismissal procedure was valid.
The High Court thus confirmed a pragmatic approach to disciplinary proceedings: what matters is that the employee was actually informed and that his rights were effectively respected, rather than strict formal compliance with the method of proof when this is not disputed.
In practice, an employee who has actually received their summons and attended the preliminary interview cannot validly invoke a procedural irregularity based solely on the absence of a signature on the discharge form. For the employer, this decision provides certainty in situations where hand delivery is established by corroborating evidence, even in the absence of a formal signature by the employee.
