Labor Law Newsletter April 2026
Regulatory Section
Reinstatement of Special Assistance for Employers of Apprentices
The decree of March 6, 2026, reinstates special assistance paid by the government to employers of apprentices who are not eligible for the one-time assistance (AUEA). It is limited to the first year of contracts that begin before January 1, 2027, and applies only to contracts entered into on or after March 8, 2026.
The amounts range from €750 to €4,500 depending on the size of the company and the certification level sought, with an increase to €6,000 for workers with disabilities. Companies with 250 or more employees are subject to stricter work-study program quota requirements (5%, or 3% with a 10% increase). Administration is entrusted to the Service and Payment Agency (ASP).
Text: Decree No. 2026-168 of March 6, 2026
Retirement Savings: Deadline for Compliance with Corporate PERs Extended to December 31, 2026
An order dated August 7, 2019, issued pursuant to the PACTE Act of May 22, 2019, set June 30, 2026, as the deadline for corporate savings plans to comply with the requirements regarding minimum contribution thresholds for certain assets under managed investment.
By a decree dated March 10, 2026, the deadline has been extended to December 31, 2026, thereby granting an additional six-month grace period for compliance.
Text: Decree of March 10, 2026 amending the decree of August 7, 2019 implementing the retirement savings reform
Case Law Section
The employer must prove that the termination of an employee’s probationary period is not related to her pregnancy
According to the Court of Cassation, when the termination of the probationary period at the employer’s initiative occurs after the employer has been informed of the employee’s pregnancy, it is incumbent upon the employer to establish that its decision is justified by factors unrelated to the pregnancy. Consequently, the Court of Appeal, which had found that the employer had been informed of the employee’s pregnancy before the termination of the probationary period, had reversed the burden of proof by criticising the employee for failing to establish any factual elements suggesting the existence of direct or indirect discrimination.
Decision: Cass. soc. 3/25/2026 No. 24-14.788 FS-B
Whistleblower: Definition of Bad Faith
An employee, who served as a program manager and staff representative, filed a report under the Sapin II Act by raising concerns about a serious environmental risk associated with a project under his responsibility (destruction of protected species, Natura 2000 sites). His employer changed his working conditions the following day. The employee acknowledged the termination of his contract, prevailed on appeal, and the employer filed a petition for cassation, arguing that the alert had been raised prematurely and for the purpose of personal protection.
The Labor Chamber dismissed the appeal and definitively established the only two cases in which bad faith may deprive an employee of the protection afforded by whistleblower status:
- the employee’s knowledge that the reported facts were false;
- acting out of self-interest, for a purpose unrelated to the public interest.
Decision: Cass. soc. 3/18/2026 No. 24-10.993, FS-B
Incapacity may be determined following a medical examination initiated by the occupational physician
The Court of Cassation has clarified that an employee’s unfitness may be determined following an examination initiated by the occupational physician provided that the latter has conducted at least one medical examination of the employee, accompanied, where appropriate, by additional tests, allowing for a discussion regarding adjustments, accommodations, or job reassignment, or the necessity of proposing a job change, if they have conducted or commissioned a study of that position, if they have conducted or commissioned a study of working conditions at the establishment and indicated the date on which the company profile was updated, and if they have engaged in a discussion, by any means, with the employer.
Decision: Cass. Soc., March 11, 2026, No. 24-21.030
Mass Transfer of Work Emails to Personal Email Accounts
The Council of State ruled on whether the conduct of the protected employee—who, invoking her right to a defense, forwarded several hundred emails from her work email account to her personal email account and to that of her spouse—constituted misconduct of sufficient gravity.
The Council of State held that transferring sensitive data to personal email accounts, including those of third parties, poses an objective risk of compromising personal data, which constituted a serious breach of the employee’s legal and contractual obligations, as professional confidentiality cannot be waived unless strictly necessary for the exercise of the right of defense.
Decision: CE, February 20, 2026, No. 497066
Absences due to commuting accidents are excluded from the calculation of seniority
The Court of Cassation has confirmed that the period during which an employee’s employment contract is suspended due to a work-related injury cannot be taken into account when calculating the seniority used to determine eligibility for statutory severance pay and the amount thereof.
Decision: Cass. Soc., March 11, 2026, No. 24-13.123
