Labor Law Newsletter December 2025 / January 2026
Regulatory Section
The 2026 Social Security Financing Bill has been definitively adopted
The Social Security Financing Bill was definitively adopted by the National Assembly on December 16, 2025. Below are the main provisions affecting businesses, which we will discuss in more detail in January.
Increase in the employer’s contribution on severance pay and retirement benefits
The employer’s contribution applicable to severance pay and retirement benefits is set at 40% of the portion of the benefits exempt from social security contributions.
Flat-rate deduction for employer contributions on overtime
Extension of the flat-rate reduction in employer contributions of €0.50 per hour of overtime to companies with at least 250 employees.
Establishment of a new maternity leave policy
This is an additional leave of one or two months to be taken within two months of the birth or adoption, which can be split into two periods of one month each for each parent. This leave is in addition to maternity, paternity, or adoption leave and is legally protected and compensated. This leave is paid at 70% of net salary for the first month and 60% for the second month. The leave will be available starting July 1, 2026, for all parents of children born or adopted on or after January 1, 2026, or whose due date was on or after that date.
Reform of the phased early retirement program
The eligibility requirements for combining retirement benefits with employment income will be tightened effective January 1, 2027, by executive order, such that insured individuals will only be able to fully combine their retirement benefits with their earned or replacement income once they reach the age at which the reduction is eliminated, namely 67.
Increase in penalty rates for undeclared work
The surcharge rate on social security contributions applicable in cases of undeclared work will increase from 25% to 35% effective June 1, 2026, and from 40% to 50% if the worker is a minor.
Maximum duration limit for work stoppages
This limit will be set by decree at one month for an initial prescription and two months for a renewal, with the possibility of exceeding this limit upon medical justification (with no limit on the number of renewals).
Case Law Section
An employee may work more than 6 consecutive days
The rules governing weekly rest periods, which require a 24-hour consecutive rest period, are applied on a calendar-week basis (Monday through Sunday). As a result, an employee may work more than six consecutive days, provided they have taken their weekly rest period during that calendar week.
Decision: Cass. Soc., 13 novembre 2025, n° 24-10.733
Telework recommended by the occupational physician, and denial of access to the home
An employer had refused to implement the work-from-home arrangement recommended by the occupational physician on the grounds that the employee had objected to the employer’s request to inspect his home to ensure compliance with safety regulations.
According to the Court of Cassation, an employee’s use of his home falls under the right to privacy. He is therefore entitled to refuse access to his home, and the employer cannot, on that ground, refuse to implement telework. It was up to the employer to challenge the occupational physician’s recommendations before the labor court in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article L. 4624-7 of the Labor Code.
Decision: Cass. Soc., 13 novembre 2025, n° 24-14.322
Burden of proof regarding the signature on the URSSAF notice
The Court of Cassation notes that the burden of proof regarding the signature of the notice of findings by the collection inspectors rests with URSSAF.
It is therefore incumbent upon this agency to demonstrate that it provided the employer with a document dated and signed by the inspectors, specifying: the documents reviewed, the period audited, the date the audit concluded, and, where applicable, the observations made during the audit, along with details regarding the nature, method of calculation, and amount of the proposed adjustments.
Failure to provide such proof may result in the adjustment being set aside.
Decision: Cass. Soc., 4 décembre 2025, n°23-16.339
“Institutional” workplace bullying and the burden of proof
In cases of “institutional” harassment characterized by management practices that have the effect of deteriorating an employee’s working conditions, the employee is not required to prove that he or she was personally targeted by the harassment.
Decision: Cass. Soc., 10 décembre 2025, n° 24-15.412
Determination of an employee’s incapacity during a period of sick leave
The occupational physician may determine that an employee is unfit for work following a return-to-work examination requested by the employer, even if, at the time of the examination, the employee was once again on sick leave.
The Court of Cassation has upheld a common practice regarding determinations of unfitness for work: the renewal of sick leave does not preclude such a determination.
Decision: Cass. Soc., 10 décembre 2025, n° 24-15.511
A dismissal based on information obtained in violation of medical confidentiality is void
An employer who contacts an employee’s treating physician to obtain and use information covered by medical confidentiality infringes on the employee’s privacy.
Furthermore, a dismissal based even in part on such information is void.
In this case, in connection with the issuance of a fitness-for-work certificate by the occupational physician, the employer obtained information about an employee regarding the medical condition from which she suffered by contacting her treating physician, allegedly to fulfill its obligations and issue the wage certificate for reimbursement by Social Security.
The employer used this information to support the dismissal for real and serious cause, accusing the employee of having submitted a backdated sick leave notice a few days after she indicated her disagreement with the fitness-for-work certificate issued by the occupational physician.
The Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision overturning the employee’s dismissal and ordering her reinstatement, finding that the employer had no legitimate reason to contact the attending physician and that it had violated the employee’s right to privacy.
Decision: Cass. Soc., 10 décembre 2025, n°24-15.412
Internal investigation in the event of a report of sexual harassment
In labor court proceedings, the rules of evidence are unrestricted. Consequently, the judgment must be overturned because, in finding that a dismissal was unfounded, it held that, in the absence of an internal investigation capable of corroborating the allegations made by the employee who reported the acts of sexual harassment cited as grounds for the dismissal, the materiality of these facts is insufficiently established, whereas no provision of the Labor Code requires the employer to conduct an internal investigation in the event of a report of sexual harassment, and it was therefore incumbent upon the employer to assess the value and scope of the testimonies and statements produced, with the benefit of the doubt necessarily going to the employee.
Decision: Cass. Soc., 14-1-2026 no 24-19.544 F-B
