Background
Optique Moro hired Ms. [T] as a managerial optician in July 2001. The company dismissed her for serious misconduct on June 25, 2020, and she brought employment claims concerning both the performance and termination of her employment contract.
The Amiens Court of Appeal found that Ms. [T] had suffered workplace psychological harassment, declared her dismissal null, and awarded dismissal-related compensation and overtime pay. It nevertheless rejected her claims for damages based on the absence of statutory professional-development interviews and periodic occupational-health examinations, as well as her request for corrected payslips. The employer filed a principal appeal to the Court of Cassation, and the employee filed a cross-appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation partially quashed the judgment. A finding that harassment was continuing when employment ended did not, without more, establish that Ms. [T] was dismissed because she had suffered or refused to suffer harassment. Because the dismissal letter did not mention any report of harassment, the Court of Appeal had to identify facts connecting the dismissal to conduct protected by Labour Code Articles L. 1152-2 and L. 1152-3. Its reasoning therefore did not provide a legally sufficient basis for declaring the dismissal null. The separate damages award for harassment remained intact because the employer’s ground of appeal did not challenge the reasons supporting it.
The Court also held that Ms. [T] was entitled to seek payslips accurately stating her job and collective-bargaining classification; lack of a demonstrated practical interest years after termination was not a valid reason to deny correction. It further held that the Court of Appeal improperly limited overtime recovery: the employer had not placed a prescription defense in the operative part of its appellate submissions, and, because the contract ended on June 25, 2020, the claim could cover sums due during the three years preceding termination. The Court remanded those matters, together with the dismissal-related awards and documents dependent on the nullity ruling, to the Douai Court of Appeal.
The Court affirmed the rejection of damages for missing professional interviews and periodic medical examinations. Neither omission automatically creates a compensable injury: the employee must prove the existence and extent of resulting harm. The appellate court was entitled to find that Ms. [T] had not done so.
Key Takeaways
- An employee’s dismissal is not null merely because workplace harassment existed or continued at the time of termination; the court must establish the dismissal’s connection to conduct protected by the statutory anti-harassment provisions.
- Failure to conduct required professional interviews or periodic occupational-health examinations does not, by itself, entitle an employee to damages; actual injury must be proved.
- A payslip must accurately identify the employee’s position and collective-bargaining classification, and overtime claims following termination may reach sums due during the three years preceding termination.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes liability for workplace harassment from nullity of a later dismissal. Even where harassment is proved, French courts must separately establish the statutory link that makes the termination itself null.
The ruling also confirms a proof-of-harm requirement for certain employer compliance failures while protecting employees’ rights to accurate payroll records and proper application of the three-year recovery period for wage claims.