On November 6, 2024, the French Supreme Court issued an important decision regarding the compensation and damages owed to an employee in case her dismissal is regarded as null and void.
In the case at hand, the employee was dismissed for gross misconduct.
She later argued that her termination was related to her pregnancy, which the employer was aware of at the date of the termination. The employee filed claims before the Employment Tribunal and asked the Court to consider that her termination was null and void. While the employee did not seek for her reinstatement, she asked for damages on top of the wages that she would have received between her dismissal and the end of the legal protection period of ten weeks after her maternity leave.
Her claims were upheld by the Court of appeal. The employer challenged this decision before the French Supreme Court arguing that the protection period was already covered by the damages awarded to the employee so much that the latter should not be entitled to additional salary back payments if no reinstatement is requested.
The French Supreme Court had therefore to decide whether an employee who has been terminated on a discriminatory motive based on her pregnancy could be entitled to the payment of wages during the protection period in addition to damages, even if the employee has not requested her reinstatement.
Based on the European Directive 92/85/CEE dated October 19, 1992, which requires Member States to implement measures prohibiting the dismissal of pregnant employees from the beginning of pregnancy until the end of maternity, the French Supreme Court has confirmed the Court of appeal’s decision. The Supreme Court also refers to the European Court’s decision which had already confirmed that when the pregnant employee does not ask for her reinstatement, she should be fully compensated by the financial loss caused by the discriminatory dismissal.
This decision is not very surprising considering the inspiration the Supreme Court draws from European law. Yet, it is a useful reminder that employers should always be cautious about the protection status that an employee could invoke and the consequences that such status could entail if the decision to terminate the contract is later challenged in court.