Articles

The French Supreme Court has refused to deduce a general presumption of justification for all the differences of treatment provided for by a collective agreement, on the basis of European Union law. The Court thus considered that a difference of treatment based on the date of presence of the employees on the site was not presumed justified, even if this difference was set out in a collective agreement

The French Supreme Court has made a significant reversal in its case law: any employee exposed to asbestos may now make a claim for the harm relating to the anxiety they feel. Up to now, this option was reserved exclusively for employees who had worked at a site listed by the administration as concerned by the early-retirement due to asbestos scheme. The anxiety harm can now be invoked by any employee who justifies exposition leading to a high risk of developing a serious illness, even if they did not work at a site listed. The employee must nevertheless prove the existence of this anxiety

When the employee signs a settlement agreement that includes a general waiver of claims on all legal action concerning the performance or termination of the employment contract, the employee is prohibited from later introducing a claim for indemnification on rights both future and current. Therefore, in the case of an employee terminated for economic reasons, he cannot later ask for indemnification pertaining to a redeployment obligation, rehiring priority, or the duties resulting from the employment protection plan

In the absence of any vitiated consent, the existence of acts of moral harassment does not in itself affect the validity of the termination agreement. An employee who establishes that the conventional breach of his employment contract occurred in a context of moral harassment, cannot therefore request its cancellation if he does not invoke a lack of consent