If you are a manager on a fixed-day contract and are experiencing an excessive workload, inform your employer in writing, particularly during your annual performance reviews or during your workload review meeting. This is the key takeaway from the ruling of November 13, 2025 (no. 23-23.535) [1], in which the French Supreme Court reclassified the resignation of a network administrator due to excessive workload.
Resignation is a unilateral act by which the employee clearly and unequivocally expresses their intention to terminate the employment contract. When an employee, without alleging any defect of consent that would invalidate their resignation, challenges it due to actions or omissions attributable to their employer, the judge must, if it appears from circumstances prior to or contemporaneous with the resignation that it was ambiguous at the time it was given, analyze it as a constructive dismissal, which has the effects of a dismissal without just cause if the alleged facts justified it, or, otherwise, as a resignation. The Court of Cassation has overturned a ruling by the Bourges Court of Appeal dated October 20, 2023.
The Court of Appeal had found that the employee, prior to resigning, had reported the significant workload during medical examinations conducted for occupational health monitoring, alerted his superiors by email on October 10, 2019, about his critical situation due to this unbearable workload, requested a visit from the occupational physician on October 24, 2019, indicating a context of work overload, and explained, during his annual performance review on February 2, 2021, and in his attached comments dated March 22, 2021, that a work-life balance was impossible, that his scope of work, too broad, spanning different time zones and without backup, resulted in a very high and constant mental workload, which he personally found very difficult to cope with. The court violated Articles L1231-1, L1237-2, and L1235-1 of the French Labor Code and should have inferred the existence of a dispute that rendered the resignation ambiguous.
This ruling must be upheld.
I. Facts.
An employee resigned after 24 years of service and filed a claim with the Labor Court seeking to have his resignation reclassified as a constructive dismissal.
To support his claim, he argued that his resignation was not unequivocal, as it was concluded in the context of an excessive workload, which vitiated his consent.
II. Grounds.
The Court of Appeal rejected the employee's claim, finding that the pressure related to his responsibilities and the excessive workload he was experiencing did not constitute a contemporaneous and determining circumstance of the resignation, making the continuation of his employment contract impossible.
The Bourges Court of Appeal, on October 20, 2023, acknowledged the reality of the employee's excessive workload, but did not draw the necessary conclusions from this finding to reclassify the employee's resignation as a constructive dismissal due to the employer's misconduct.
Furthermore, the validity of the employee's fixed-day work agreement was also raised, albeit in the alternative. The Supreme Court invoked Article 1014 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ruled that there was no need to rule on this issue, as this argument was clearly not grounds for reversal.
III. Analysis
With reference to Articles L1231-1, L1237-2, and L1235-1 of the French Labor Code, the Court of Cassation reiterates that a resignation may be reclassified as a constructive dismissal by a judge when circumstances prior to or contemporaneous with the resignation demonstrate that, at the time it was submitted, the resignation was ambiguous.
Thus, the court acknowledges that a challenge to the resignation is not based solely on a defect of consent but may also stem from the employer's shortcomings, in this case, related to the employee's working conditions.
To support its decision, the court elaborates on its reasoning by considering all the elements prior to the employee's resignation, which revealed the existence of an excessive workload. In this regard, it notes:
• Medical examinations conducted for the employee's occupational health;
• An email from the employee to their superiors alerting them to their critical situation due to an unbearable workload;
• A doctor's visit and accompanying comments demonstrating a lack of work-life balance for the employee and a very high and persistent mental workload, which was personally difficult to cope with.
In light of these findings, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal should have inferred the existence of a dispute concurrent with the resignation, rendering it ambiguous.
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