Inaptitude for work: the imprescriptibility of the employer's breach of safety obligation

In a ruling handed down on April 24, the French Supreme Court ruled for the first time that an employee can contest his dismissal for unfitness for work by invoking the imprescriptibility of his employer's breaches of his safety obligation, even though these are legally time-barred.

Employer's breach of safety obligation

In this case, a person had been hired as a "merchandiser" by a cosmetics company. Two years after taking up her new post, she was declared unfit for work following two follow-up examinations. Following this declaration, the employer decided to dismiss her on the grounds of unfitness and the impossibility of redeployment. Challenging this decision, the employee brought claims before the labour court relating to the performance and termination of her employment contract.

The industrial tribunal disagreed, ruling that the statute of limitations for contesting dismissal runs from the date of notification. The employee argued that her dismissal for unfitness was the direct result of the employer's breach of his safety obligation, and that the statute of limitations had expired on February 20, 2015, even though he had been dismissed by letter dated December 23, 2015.

Before the Court of Appeal, the employee's claim for compensation for dismissal without real and serious cause was rejected on the grounds that the facts constituting the employer's breach of its safety obligation were time-barred.

Dissatisfied with both rulings, the employee appealed to the French Supreme Court.

Dismissal for unfitness can be contested without delay

In a ruling handed down on April 24, 2024, the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) overturned the appeal decision, stating that the statute of limitations on the facts invoked did not prevent the admissibility of an action challenging a dismissal for unfitness.

First of all, the social chamber of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) points out that the employer is required to ensure the health and safety of workers by implementing preventive measures, information and training. They must also assess the occupational risks at each workstation, which are recorded in a document. Failure to comply with these obligations may result in civil and/or criminal liability.

Secondly, it specifies that dismissal is "devoid of real and serious cause" when the employee's unfitness is linked to the employer's failure to meet his safety obligations.

It then goes on to state thatan employee acting within the time limit for contesting his dismissal for unfitness can invoke, without delay, that the dismissal is the consequence of the employer's failure to meet his obligations. In this way, the high court considers that the question of the statute of limitations for the facts invoked is irrelevant, as long as the action to contest the dismissal was brought within 2 years of notification of the termination of the employment contract.