Workplace bullying:

Court of Cassation (Labor Division), May 28, 2026, No. 24-22.754, Published in the Bulletin.

In a ruling dated May 28, the Court of Cassation recognized workplace sexual harassment
An employee may thus claim harassment even if she is not directly or personally targeted by the disputed conduct.
In this case, a female employee working as a team member at a fast-food restaurant sought damages for emotional and sexual harassment on the grounds that her manager engaged in inappropriate behavior toward other employees, which affected her working conditions and those of the entire team to such an extent that several employees participated in a strike to protest the working conditions.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the employee’s claim on the grounds that the sexually suggestive remarks made by her supervisor were directed at her colleagues, not at her personally.
The Court of Cassation, after reiterating that no employee should be subjected to sexual harassment, held “that sexually suggestive or sexist remarks directed at several employees, or such behavior exhibited in the presence of several employees, are likely to be experienced by each of them.” In the court’s view, such remarks, made or exhibited repeatedly by the manager in the presence of the employee and her colleagues, can create “a humiliating and degrading work environment, regardless of whether [the plaintiff] was directly targeted by these remarks or behaviors.”
The employee may therefore rely on these facts to establish that she, too, was the victim of harassment.

Dismissal: An employee cannot be dismissed for reporting her pregnancy late

Court of Cassation (Labor Division), June 3, 2026, No. 24-22.719

An employee was working as an R&D project manager in the chemical industry; she announced her pregnancy several months after learning of it.
Her employer then terminated her employment for serious misconduct, arguing that she had endangered her own physical and mental well-being by using chemicals that were hazardous to her health and that of her fetus, which could have exposed the employer to civil and criminal liability.
The Court of Appeals found that serious misconduct had occurred, noting in particular that the employee had knowingly failed to inform her employer of her pregnancy for several months, even though the position she held exposed her to a significant risk to her own health and that of her unborn child; this constituted a breach of the obligations arising from the employment contract or employment relationship of such significance that, given her status as a manager within the company, that it makes it impossible for the employee to remain with the company.
Conversely, the Court of Cassation reiterates that a pregnant employee is not required to disclose her pregnancy to her employer.
Therefore, silence or a belated disclosure cannot constitute serious misconduct.
Finally, if the termination is based, even partially, on the pregnancy or on the failure to disclose it, it is void.

Work Stoppages: Toward Stricter Regulations on Prescriptions

Law No. 2025-1403 of December 30, 2025, on Social Security Funding for 2026, Art. 81 (effective September 1, 2026)

The Social Security Financing Act for 2026 provides for increased oversight of sick leave in order to strengthen the monitoring of prescriptions and renewals.
The practical details of the measure have yet to be specified by implementing decrees. The draft legislation currently under discussion proposes, in particular, to limit the duration of initial prescriptions and renewals, while allowing the prescribing physician to seek the opinion of the Health Insurance medical review board when the duration of a sick leave renewal reaches three months.

What This Means for Employers

• A clear commitment by public authorities to better regulate long-term absences;
• Enhanced monitoring of situations involving prolonged absences;
• Greater attention paid to the management and tracking of work absences.

What This Means for Employers

Cette réforme s’inscrit dans une tendance de fond visant à mieux encadrer les arrêts de travail et à harmoniser les pratiques de prescription.

Les entreprises ont intérêt à suivre de près la publication des décrets qui en préciseront les modalités concrètes.