The employer may not, without violating this fundamental freedom, contact the employee's treating physician to obtain and use information covered by medical confidentiality.
The unlawful nature of the reason for dismissal, based even in part on information obtained by the employer from the employee's treating physician in violation of medical confidentiality, infringes upon the employee's right to privacy and, in itself, renders the dismissal null and void. This is what the French Supreme Court affirmed, for the first time, in a judgment of December 10, 2025 (24-15.412), published in the official bulletin. In the other ground of appeal, the Court of Cassation affirms that "management methods within a company that have the effect of degrading an employee's working conditions and are likely to impair their physical or mental health constitute psychological harassment without the need for the employee to demonstrate that they were personally targeted by this harassment."
This ruling should be upheld.
1) Analysis.
The Court of Cassation has once again rendered a landmark ruling with regard to the cited legal texts.
With reference to Article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 9 of the Civil Code, and Article L1121-1 of the Labor Code, the Court of Cassation affirms that employees have the right, even at work, to respect for their private life, which includes, in particular, their state of health and their relationship with their attending physician.
This is a standard legal principle.
1.1) Dismissal for violation of a fundamental freedom = a contaminating ground for dismissal that renders the dismissal null and void: consistent case law.
The employer may not, without violating this fundamental freedom, contact the employee's treating physician to obtain and use information covered by medical confidentiality.
The unlawful nature of the reason for dismissal, based even in part on information obtained by the employer from the employee's treating physician in violation of medical confidentiality, infringes upon the employee's right to privacy and, in itself, renders the dismissal null and void.
Any dismissal that violates a fundamental freedom is sanctioned by nullity.
This is a contaminating ground, meaning that the judge is not bound by other grounds for dismissal as long as one of the grievances stated in the dismissal letter violates a fundamental freedom. The dismissal is null and void, and the employee may request reinstatement in the company.
The Court of Cassation links the violation of medical confidentiality to the violation of privacy. In a ruling dated December 10, 2025 (24-17.316), the Court of Cassation reiterated that a reason stemming from an employee's personal life cannot, in principle, justify disciplinary dismissal, unless it constitutes a breach by the employee of an obligation arising from their employment contract. Therefore, the employer cannot, without violating this fundamental freedom, compel employees to disclose information about their family situation.
1.2) Workplace harassment due to company management methods: the employee does not have to prove that they were personally targeted by this harassment!
Furthermore, this ruling of December 10, 2025, is also important regarding the definition of workplace harassment it establishes.
The Court of Cassation affirms, in a landmark ruling, that management methods within a company that have the effect of degrading an employee's working conditions and are likely to impair their physical or mental health constitute workplace harassment without requiring the employee to demonstrate that they were personally targeted by this harassment.
The Court of Appeal noted that several employees of the store where the woman in question worked had reported psychological harassment by their two supervisors, both to management and during the investigation launched by the employer following this report. They described pressure to resign, blackmail, disrespect, and insults, and specified that numerous sick leaves had been prescribed to various employees. The court further noted that the investigation report included consistent testimonies from each of the employees, including that of the woman in question, who confirmed the statements made by her colleagues in the email of denunciation, citing incidents concerning her personally as well as the deterioration of her health.
The court added that the labor inspector had identified a number of workplace violations, partially corroborating the complaints submitted to him, particularly regarding movement between the store and the stockroom. On these grounds alone, which established that the company's management methods had degraded the employee's working conditions and were likely to impair her physical or mental health, and without being required to conduct an investigation rendered unnecessary by its findings, the court legally justified its decision.
To substantiate a claim of psychological harassment, the employee only needs to be a member of the group targeted by the harassment [1].
To read the full article, click on the link below.
Frédéric CHHUM avocat et ancien membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)
CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)
e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr
.Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300
.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644
.Lille: : 45, Rue Saint Etienne 59000 Lille – Ligne directe +(33) 03.20.57.53.24
Pas de contribution, soyez le premier