Recommendations of the Occupational Physician: The Employer Must Comply

The Court of Cassation issues an important reminder here regarding occupational health and safety: the employer’s mere failure to comply with the occupational physician’s recommendations regarding the modification, adaptation, or redesign of the workstation entitles the employee to compensation.
It is therefore no longer necessary for the employee to prove separate damages. For the company, this decision underscores the need to rigorously follow up on medical recommendations and, in the event of a refusal, to formally document the reasons for such a refusal to both the employee and the occupational physician. Read the ruling on the Court of Cassation’s website
Cass. soc., September 9, 2026, No. 25-11.901

Prolonged Absence: Dismissal Remains Possible, but the Employer Must Demonstrate Disruption

A prolonged absence or repeated absences may lead an employer to consider termination when the company’s operations are significantly disrupted over an extended period and a permanent replacement is necessary.
The Court specifies, however, that these elements must be substantiated: unless the employer can demonstrate the actual disruption and the replacement of the employee within a reasonable timeframe, the termination will lack a valid and serious cause.
It will not, however, be considered discriminatory on the basis of health status for this reason alone. This ruling is useful for ensuring the proper management of long-term absences. Read the ruling on the Court of Cassation’s website
Cass. soc., September 9, 2026, No. 25-14.356

Equal Treatment: Differences Between Occupational Categories May Be Presumed Justified

The Court of Cassation notes that differences in treatment between occupational categories resulting from a collective bargaining agreement or collective agreement negotiated and signed by representative labor unions are presumed to be justified.
Anyone challenging such differences must demonstrate that they are unrelated to any professional considerations.
This ruling provides valuable legal certainty for companies that apply different contractual provisions depending on employee categories, particularly with regard to compensation or benefits. Read the ruling on the Court of Cassation’s website
Cass. soc., September 16, 2026, No. 24-21.567

Breast Cancer: Recognition of Work-Related Nature Following Multiple Exposures

The labor division of the Bayonne Judicial Court recognized the occupational nature of a former Air France flight attendant’s breast cancer. According to information provided by the court and reported by AFP, the decision specifically took into account her exposure to night work, cosmic ionizing radiation, and secondhand smoke throughout her career.
Presented as a first in the French aviation sector, this decision illustrates the possibility of recognizing a disease as work-related even if it is not directly listed in the schedule of occupational diseases, provided that a link between the condition and working conditions is established.
As of this writing, the judgment has not yet been published on Légifrance.
Bayonne Judicial Court, Social Division, judgment of July 3, 2026