Sick Leave: A New Framework Effective September 1, 2026

Effective September 1, 2026, the duration of prescribed sick leave will be capped at 31 days for an initial prescription and 62 days for an extension. Effective September 1, 2026, the duration of prescribed sick leave will be capped at 31 days for an initial prescription and 62 days for an extension.
However, a physician may exceed these limits if they justify, on the prescription, the need for a longer duration based on the patient’s condition.
The reform also requires that the prescribing physician include, in addition to medical information, the reasons justifying the work absence.
Finally, for renewals of sick leave lasting more than three months, the prescribing physician may seek the opinion of the medical review board.
For employers, this change reinforces the need for structured monitoring of long-term sick leave and for effectively planning the conditions under which the employee will return to work.
Decrees No. 2026-498 and 2026-499 of June 12, 2026; Art. 81 of Law No. 2025-1403 of December 30, 2025, on Social Security Funding for 2026.

Mutually Agreed Termination: Maximum Unemployment Benefits Periods Will Change Effective September 1

Effective September 1, 2026, employees whose employment contracts are terminated through an individual mutual termination agreement will no longer be eligible for the same maximum duration of unemployment benefits.
The maximum duration will be reduced to 15 months for those under 55 and to 20.5 months for employees aged 55 and older.
The new rules will apply to employees whose employment contracts are actually terminated on or after September 1, 2026.
For companies currently negotiating mutually agreed terminations, the effective date of the contract’s termination is therefore a factor that must be included in the information provided to the employee regarding the consequences of their departure.
Law No. 2026-470 of June 11, 2026; Executive Order of June 19, 2026

Compensation for damages resulting from a workplace accident is not within the jurisdiction of the labor court

In a ruling dated July 8, 2026, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed its established case law that compensation for damages resulting from a workplace accident falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the social security courts, even if the accident was the result of the employer’s failure to fulfill its duty of care.
In this case, a pharmacy challenged the decision of the Colmar Court of Appeals, which had ordered it to pay damages to its former employee for failing to meet its safety obligations. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the employer had not implemented the necessary measures to protect the employee from the identified risk of incidents involving customers.
The employer argued that compensation for a workplace accident could not be sought under general civil law, as this would violate Article L. 451-1 of the Social Security Code. The Court of Cassation ruled in the employer’s favor, noting that compensation for damages resulting from a workplace accident falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the social security courts, even in cases where the employer has breached its duty of care.
Cass. Soc., July 8, 2026, No. 24-16.665

Working While on Sick Leave: Compensation Is Not Automatic!

In this case, an employee sought compensation on the grounds that she had been required to work while on sick leave, which she characterized as a breach by the employer of its duty to ensure safety.
She relied on recent case law from the Labor Chamber, according to which an employer who requires an employee to work during sick leave breaches its duty of
care, and the mere finding of such a breach is sufficient to entitle the employee to compensation (Cass. Soc., September 4, 2024, No. 23-15.944)
However, in this case, the situation is markedly different because the employee alone took the initiative to work while on sick leave
In the judges’ view, while the employer breached its duty of care by allowing the employee to work, it was nevertheless up to the employee to provide evidence of her harm, as the theory of “necessary harm” could not apply in this instance
The ruling therefore distinguishes between cases where an employee works during sick leave either at the employer’s request or on their own initiative, without the employer objecting. In the latter case, the employee must demonstrate the existence and extent of their harm.
Cass. Soc., July 1, 2026, No. 25-15.732