Three recent decisions to incorporate into HR practices immediately  

In recent weeks, several rulings by the Court of Cassation have reinforced the requirements placed on employers regarding evidence, procedural formalities, and the safeguarding of HR decisions.
Behind these rulings lies a single message: judges now expect companies to provide a much more structured demonstration of their case, particularly on sensitive personnel management issues.

Case No. 1 — Termination During the Probationary Period and Pregnancy: The Burden of Proof Shifts to the Employer

Supreme Court (Labor Division), March 25, 2026, No. 24-14.788, published in the Bulletin

When an employer terminates an employee’s probationary period after being informed of her pregnancy, the employer must now demonstrate that the decision is based solely on objective factors unrelated to her pregnancy.
The practical implications of this decision are significant: the Court is applying the specific rules governing discrimination, which offer greater protection than those governing the termination of a probationary period.
For HR directors and operational managers, the lesson is clear: an insufficiently documented probationary period—lack of evaluations, unformalized difficulties, warnings given only verbally—becomes a major litigation risk.
In practice, the decision requires:

  • Evaluation points established during the probationary period;
  • Formalized managerial feedback;
  • And a clear timeline of the difficulties observed prior to any decision to terminate.

Stop No. 2 — Fixed-term contract: Late delivery of the contract may result in the contract being reclassified as a permanent contract

Supreme Court (Labor Division), March 25, 2026, No. 23-19.526, published in the Bulletin

The Court of Cassation has ruled that compensation for the late submission of a fixed-term contract may be awarded in addition to compensation for the reclassification of the contract as a permanent one.
The reasoning is clear: these two penalties do not compensate for the same harm.
The practical implications are significant for HR departments: a contract submitted late is no longer a mere administrative irregularity that can be “made up for.”
Failure to comply with the signing schedule becomes a separate risk, potentially adding to existing litigation.
In practical terms, this decision requires companies to:

  • Ensure the reliability of signing workflows;
  • Track actual delivery dates;
  • Secure onboarding processes;
  • And monitor local recruitment practices more closely.

In many organizations, this issue is still managed in a manner that is too ad hoc given the level of risk now involved.

Stop No. 3 — Inability to perform: concrete and demonstrable efforts to find alternative employment

Supreme Court (Labor Division), April 9, 2026, No. 24-12.107

In this decision, the Court of Cassation reiterates that, in cases of unfitness for work, the employer must be able to demonstrate that it has made genuine, individualized, and concrete efforts to find alternative employment.
Generic or standardized procedures are no longer sufficient.
Judges now expect companies to be able to provide:

  • The positions actually considered;
  • The discussions held within the company;
  • The adjustments envisaged;
  • And the specific reasons that led to the rejection of certain solutions.

For HR directors, the implication is very practical: the redeployment file must now be constructed as a genuine evidentiary record, and not as a mere formality prior to dismissal.

In summary

These recent decisions reflect a now-constant trend in labor litigation: managerial authority remains, but it must be demonstrable.
Probationary periods, temporary contracts, and unfitness for work: in each of these areas, judges are tightening requirements for the traceability, justification, and documentation of HR decisions.
And it is precisely this continuous rise in evidentiary requirements that now constitutes one of the main challenges for HR directors and executives in ensuring compliance.