Through two rulings issued in May 2025, the French Supreme Court continues to clarify its case law regarding compensation for hemployees, drawing a clear distinction between breaches by the employer that automatically give rise to compensation and those that, on the contrary, require proof of specific harm.
A first decision dated May 6, 2025 (FSC, May 6, 2025, n°23-17.005) concern damages for failure to pay salary in the event of unfitness, and a second ruling dated May 14, 2025 (FSC, May 14, 2025, n°24-12.175) deals with work imposed during a period of sick leave. Both illustrate contrasting approaches adopted by the French Supreme Court on the concept of automatic compensation—an issue at the core of its recentcase law.
In the May 6, 2025 ruling, the Social Chamber reaffirms a now well-established principle: harm is not presumed. The mere failure to comply with the salary continuance obligation (provided by article L. 1226-4 of the Labour Code) following a declaration of unfitness does not automatically entitle the employee to additional damages. To obtain compensation, the employee must demonstrate the employer’s bad faith and a distinct harm beyond the delay in payment.
By contrast, in the May 14, 2025 ruling, the Court held that the fact that an employer had an employee work during sick leave constitutes, in itself, an infringement of the fundamental right to health, justifying automatic compensation, without the employee having to prove any specific harm. In doing so, the Court acknowledged that certain breaches of the employer’s safety obligation—particularly those of a fundamental nature— are in themselves sufficient to give rise to compensation, without any need for further evidence.
These two rulings reflect a graduated approach to harm in French labour law:
- When the employer’s breach affects fundamental rights (as in the right to health guaranteed by the Constitution and European texts), harm is presumed irrefutably.
- Conversely, when the breach concerns a monetary obligation (such as failure to pay salary), harm is not automatically presumed: the employee must prove distinct harm to obtain more than statutory interest.
Source : First decision (May 6, 2025) / Second decision (May 14, 2025)