This newsletter presents four court decisions handed down in recent months.
- No trial period if the position was previously held as a self-employed (Cass. Soc., April 29, 2025, No. 23-22.389)
An individual worked self-employed with a company as a sales agent for more than nine months. The parties then entered into an employment contract containing a two-month trial period. The employer terminated the trial period within the specified period.
The employee disputed the termination.
The appeals judges rejected the employee's claims on the grounds that the employer had not been able to assess his professional skills in an employment situation, a relationship of subordination.
The French Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal's decision. It ruled that the purpose of the trial period is to assess the employee's skills for their job, and that the judge must therefore determine whether the employer had the opportunity to assess the employee's professional abilities during the previous employment relationship, regardless of its form.
- An employee's refusal to accept the information memo on the economic grounds for redundancy does not release the employer from its obligation to provide it before the employee opts for the CSP (Cass. Soc., May 6, 2025, No. 23-12.998)
During the preliminary meeting prior to his redundancy, an employee refused the information memo on the economic grounds offered at the same time as a professional security contract (CSP). The day after this preliminary meeting, he signs up to the CSP. The employer then sends him the information memo three days later.
The employee contested his dismissal, accusing his employer of failing to provide him with the information memo before he opted for the CSP.
The Court of Appeal rejected the employee's claims, ruling that the employee's refusal to receive the information memo during the preliminary interview justifies a late delivery.
The French Supreme Court ruled instead that, except in cases of fraud, the mere refusal of the employee to receive the information memo does not exempt the employer from notifying the employee of this memo before any acceptance of the CSP.
- Transferring confidential documents to one's personal email account is not necessarily faulty (Cass. Soc., April 9, 2025, No. 24-12.055)
An employee was dismissed for serious misconduct for transferring an email containing confidential attachments belonging to the company from her work email account to her personal email account.
The employee contested the validity of her dismissal, and the Court of Appeal ruled in her favour, finding that the dismissal was without real and serious cause.
The employer argued before the French Supreme Court that the employee was bound by a contractual confidentiality obligation, as well as by the company's IT security rules and ethical charter. For the employer, this misconduct was even more serious because the employee concealed her actions by deleting all traces of the transfer.
However, the French Supreme Court rejected the employer's appeal. It ruled that the mere fact of transferring confidential documents to her personal email account, without sending them to anyone outside the company, did not justify the employee's dismissal.
- An employee who commits an offense is civilly liable for damages caused to their employer (Cass. Crim., January 14, 2025, No. 24-81.365)
While driving a company vehicle, an employee was convicted of speeding, a repeat offense, and driving under the influence of cannabis. During the criminal proceedings, the employer brought a civil action to obtain compensation for the damage suffered, as the vehicle had been damaged.
Before the French Supreme Court, the employee criticized the Court of Appeal's decision to order him to compensate his employer. He argued that an employee's financial liability to his employer could only result from gross negligence or an intentional offense. He maintained that his dangerous conduct while performing his employment contract did not meet either of these conditions.
The French Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It ruled that the employee is liable for any damage caused to his employer in the event of an offense, without there being any need to prove intent to cause harm.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
