Rejection of employee’s automatic prejudice: night work, paid leave, working time in days over the year
Soc., March 11, 2025, n°21-23.557, n° 23-16.415, n° 24-10.452 and n° 23-19.669

In four judgments on the same day, the Supreme Court ruled that it is for the employee to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the failure to provide night workers with reinforced medical monitoring, from the employer’s failure to guarantee that paid leave is actually taken, or from the absence of any control over the workload of employees on working time in days over the year. The Supreme Court once again confirms the need for the employee to prove his prejudice in the event of the employer’s breach of legal or contractual obligations.

Remote working: towards systematic granting of home-occupation allowance to employees
Soc., March 19, 2025, n°22-17.315

The Supreme Court has ruled, for the first time, pursuant to article L. 1222-9 paragraph 1 of the Labour Code, which defines remote working, even though it was not clear from the facts of the case that the employee was working from home, that the occupation of an employee’s home for business purposes constitutes an interference with his private life, so that the employee is entitled to compensation in this respect if a business premises is not actually made available to him or if it has been agreed that the work is to be carried out in the form of telecommuting. The action for payment of this indemnity is subject to the two-year statute of limitations.

Presumption of resignation and protected employee: need for authorization from the labor inspectorate
Paris Court of Appeal, March 6, 2025, n°24/02319

The Paris Court of Appeal has ruled, for the first time, that while it is accepted that the protective status does not apply when an employee decides to unilaterally terminate his employment contract, the legal presumption of resignation, which involves the employer in the termination of the employment contract, does not exempt the employer from requesting the authorization of the Labour Inspectorate. The Court of Appeal therefore declared the termination of the contract in breach of the protective status null and void and ordered the employee’s reinstatement.

Compensation for null dismissal includes bonuses and overtime work
Soc., April 2nd, 2025, n° 23-20.987

The Supreme Court has specified that the amount of compensation awarded for a null dismissal, equivalent to six months’ salary, is calculated by including bonuses received and overtime worked by the employee in the last six months prior to the termination of the employment contract.