In a landmark decision of September 4th, 2024 (no. 23-13.583), the Court of Cassation firmly reiterates that, when the dismissal is declared null and void, the employer must reinstate the employee, unless it proves that it is materially impossible to do so.
In this case, the CPAM of Bas-Rhin attempted to justify this impossibility by psychosocial risks, but the Court of Cassation considered these justifications insufficient in the presence of a breach by the employer of its safety obligation.
I. Facts.
An employee was hired in 2015 as an administrative agent by the Bas-Rhin primary health insurance fund, and was dismissed on January 10, 2018.
She challenged this dismissal before the industrial tribunal, requesting its nullity, her reinstatement in her job, as well as the payment of wages due.
On December 6, 2022, the Colmar Court of Appeal dismissed the employee's request for reinstatement and limited certain compensation.
It considered, taking up the CPAM's argument, that the employee's reinstatement was impossible due to psychosocial risks at work, in particular related to management and relations with the public.
The employee then filed an appeal in cassation.
II. Grounds.
The employee complains that the judgment dismissed her requests for reinstatement, whereas "by rejecting Ms. [Y]'s request for reinstatement on the grounds that there were risks of suffering at work related to management and relations with the public that could lead to aggressive behavior by the employee towards herself or others, which did not characterize any impossibility for the employer to reinstate her in her job or an equivalent job, the Court of Appeal violated Articles L1226-9, L1226-13 and L1235-3-1 of the Labor Code." III. Solution. The Court of Cassation partially overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, considering that the arguments put forward to refuse reinstatement were insufficient and did not justify a material impossibility. Indeed, in accordance with Articles L1226-9, L1226-13 and L1235-3-1 of the French Labor Code, the Court of Cassation recalls that, when a dismissal is declared null and void, the employer is required to reinstate the dismissed employee in his or her job or an equivalent job, unless he or she proves the material impossibility of reinstatement.
Therefore, the Court of Cassation rules that the reasons given by the Court of Appeal to refuse the employee's reinstatement do not constitute an impossibility of reinstatement.
Indeed, the latter justifies the impossibility of reinstatement by psychosocial risks, relying on a medical report from 2017 mentioning psychosocial risks within the employee's department, while having acknowledged that the employer had failed in its safety obligation due to the moral harassment acknowledged at the same time.
Thus, the Colmar Court of Appeal considers that it is materially impossible to reinstate the employee due to the risks that she could commit a violent act, a medical certificate dated 21 June 2017 indicating this.
However, according to the Court of Cassation, these two points are contradictory: the impossibility of reinstatement was not sufficiently justified, because the Court of Appeal did not sufficiently take into account that the employer had failed in its safety obligation, which led to a violation of the legal texts relating to the obligation of safety and protection of employees. As a result, the Court of Cassation overturns the decision of the Colmar Court of Appeal and refers the case back to the Metz Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
To read the full brief, 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