Cass. soc. June 11, 2025, no. 24-13.083 F-B
An employee assigned to store deliveries, who had received a medical opinion stating that he was fit to work with reservations (in particular the use of an electric forklift), was sent to sites that were not equipped, in disregard of these instructions. Placed on sick leave, then declared unfit, he was dismissed. The Court of Appeal rejected his request for judicial termination, ruling that the employer could not have known what equipment was available at its customers’ sites.
The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) censured this decision. It points out that Articles L. 4624-3 and L. 4624-6 of the French Labor Code require the employer to comply with the occupational physician’s recommendations, even when the employee is working for a third-party company. It is the employer’s responsibility to check that working conditions are in line with these recommendations, regardless of any warning given by the employee.
The high court emphasizes that even recommendations formulated in the form of wishes are binding on the employer. In the absence of verification, the employer is in breach of its safety obligation, and dismissal for unfitness may be deemed to be without real and serious cause if it is the result of misconduct on the part of the employer.
References
- Cass. soc. June 11, 2025, no. 24-13.083 F-B
- Cass. soc. 2007-12-19, no. 06-46.134 F-D
- Cass. soc. 17-10-2012, no. 11-18.648 F-D
- C. trav., art. L. 4624-3 and L. 4624-6
