Labor Law Newsletter, November 2025
Regulatory Section
Reforms to the “Seniors Act” of October 24, 2025
The performance review is becoming a career development review
The deadlines for scheduling the new performance review have been revised as follows:
- After an initial review conducted during the first year following hire, the review is held every 4 years (instead of every 2 years),
- The performance review takes place every 8 years (instead of every 6 years).
The law introduces two specific interviews for experienced employees:
- A career development interview must be scheduled within two months of the mid-career medical examination (conducted in the year the employee turns 45),
- A career development interview scheduled within two years prior to the employee turning 60 must address the conditions for continued employment and options for end-of-career arrangements.
For mandatory career development interviews upon an employee’s return to work, the law provides an exemption from the requirement to conduct such an interview if the employee has already had one within the 12 months preceding their return to work.
The “Seniors” Act also provides clarification on the topics to be addressed during this career path interview and provides assistance in preparing for it through career development counseling for employees of companies with fewer than 300 employees, and through the OPCO or an external organization designated by a collective agreement for the employer.
It should be noted that failure to comply with the obligations regarding the organization of career path interviews is punishable in companies with at least 50 employees by a corrective fine of €3,000 (Article L. 6315-1 of the Labor Code).
Creation of a pilot permanent contract for seniors (over 5 years)
Section 4 of the “Seniors” Act establishes a new permanent employment contract on a pilot basis that applies to job seekers who are registered with France Travail, are at least 60 years old, are not eligible for a full retirement pension, and have not been employed by the company or group during the six months preceding the conclusion of this contract.
The employer may then retire the employee upon reaching the age of eligibility for a full retirement pension (rather than at age 70 under a standard contract) and will be exempt from the 30% employer contribution on the retirement severance pay.
New topic for negotiations on the employment of older workers
The “Seniors Act” establishes a new obligation to negotiate for companies or groups of companies with at least 300 employees in which representative union branches have been established (and, in practice, in which at least one union representative has been appointed). These negotiations take place every three years, unless a collective agreement extends the interval to four years, and focus on employment, work, and the improvement of working conditions for experienced employees, taking their age into account.
End-of-career transition programs
The “Seniors Act” strengthens the requirement for employers to provide justification when they deny a request for phased retirement. This justification must now take into account the impact of the requested reduction in working hours on the continuity of the company’s operations, as well as—if hiring is necessary—the difficulties involved in doing so.
The law establishes the possibility of providing, through a collective agreement, for the use of retirement severance pay to maintain compensation during a period of part-time or reduced work, as provided for under an end-of-career program.
Removal of the term limit
Article L. 2314-33 of the Labor Code has also been amended to remove the limit of three consecutive terms for members of the CSE’s employee delegation, regardless of the company’s workforce size.
Text : Law No. 2025-989 of October 24, 2025, Transposing National Interprofessional Agreements Promoting the Employment of Experienced Workers and Concerning the Development of Social Dialogue
New annual social security ceiling for 2026
The annual social security ceiling for 2026 has been set at €48,060, effective January 1, 2026.
Case Law Section
The Unlawfulness of a Performance Evaluation System – Vagueness and Subjectivity of the Criteria
When evaluating employees, an employer must choose a method based on specific, objective criteria that are relevant to the intended purpose.
Behavioral criteria are permissible only if they are sufficiently specific to be linked to the employee’s job duties and can be assessed objectively.
In this case, an employer had implemented an individual development interview system, which included the evaluation of behavioral competencies based on behavioral criteria and sub-criteria, such as:
- “Ambition”
- “Commitment, perseverance – demonstrating optimism”
- “Transparency – acting and communicating with honesty”; “Being pragmatic: taking a practical approach by demonstrating common sense”
A union, arguing that these criteria were not objective or verifiable, filed a lawsuit seeking to have the policy banned and prevailed in the Court of Appeals, which ruled the policy unlawful.
The Court held that the concepts of “optimism,” “honesty,” and “common sense”—whose moralizing connotations encroached on employees’ personal lives—were “too vague and imprecise to establish a direct, sufficient, and necessary link with the employees’ work activities for the purpose of assessing their job skills, and led to an overly subjective approach, lacking objectivity by straying from the intended purpose, which was to measure the employees’ professional abilities.”
The Court of Cassation upheld this decision.
Decision : Cass. Soc., 15 octobre 2025, n°22-20.716
Financial penalty for failure to implement an action plan on gender equality in the workplace
The Council of State has just ruled for the first time on a financial penalty imposed on a company for failing to implement an action plan on gender equality in the workplace (focusing in particular on reducing the pay gap, as well as on the quality of and conditions for work).
Articles L 2242-1 et seq. of the Labor Code require any company with more than 50 employees to negotiate an agreement on professional equality or, failing that, to implement a dedicated action plan.
The company MAX MARA had been fined approximately €72,000 by the DREETS. Before the administrative court, in challenging the financial penalty, the company developed an argument based on the wording of the Labor Code. According to the company, since Article L 2242-1 requires a company with at least one representative union branch to engage in negotiations on professional equality between women and men at least once every four years, and since Article L 2242-3 specifies that in the absence of an agreement, the employer must establish an action plan. The company concluded that since it had no representative union branch, it was not required to adopt an action plan.
The Council of State rejected this argument, reiterating the principle that any company with more than 50 employees must have an equality agreement or plan in place.
The Council of State nevertheless overturned the ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal, finding that the Action Plan submitted by the company set out progress targets, actions, and quantified indicators in at least three of the areas of action listed in Article L.2323-8(1) bis of the Labor Code.
Decision : Conseil d’Etat, 1er octobre 2025, n°495549dxe
Scope of the duties of a certified public accountant appointed by the Social and Economic Committee
The certified public accountant appointed by the Social and Economic Committee (CSE) as part of the consultation on strategic directions may not extend their mandate to a reorganization plan subject to a separate consultation. This was reaffirmed by the Court of Cassation in a ruling dated September 17, 2025.
In this case, an occupational health association had launched its annual consultation on strategic directions. The CSE had appointed a certified public accountant to assist it but had included in the accountant’s mandate an analysis of a proposed merger between the association and another entity. The engagement letter specifically provided that the accountant would be responsible for “assessing the impact of the proposed merger on jobs.”
The association contested this extension, arguing that the project in question was the subject of a specific consultation, as provided for in a procedural agreement signed with the labor unions.
The Court notes that “ ad hoc consultation regarding changes to the company’s economic or legal structure, or in the event of restructuring and workforce reductions, is not contingent upon the employer’s prior fulfillment of the obligation to consult the Social and Economic Committee on the company’s strategic direction (Soc., September 21, 2022, Appeal No. 20-23.660, published) .”
The Court of Cassation held that the merger plan was already sufficiently defined and governed by a separate information-consultation schedule. It therefore did not need to be submitted to the committee as part of its consultation. The expert’s mandate must therefore be redefined and his fees reduced.
Decision : Cass. Soc., 17 septembre 2025, n°24-14.518
An employee’s refusal to sign a Collective Performance Agreement and the Labor Court’s assessment of whether the subsequent dismissal was genuine and justified
As an exception to the standard procedure for amending an employment contract, an employer may impose contract changes on an employee through the negotiation and adoption of a collective performance agreement (CPA).
The APC is a specific type of collective agreement that provides for adjustments to work organization, working hours, or employee compensation to address operational needs of the company in order to preserve or create jobs.
If these conditions are met and the employee refuses the modification contained in the APC, the employer may terminate the employee’s employment due to this refusal (see Art. L.2254-2 of the Labor Code), without needing to provide further justification.
According to the Court of Cassation, when a dismissed employee brings a case before the labor court to challenge their dismissal, it is incumbent upon the court to assess the genuine and serious nature of the grounds for dismissal resulting from the employee’s refusal, with regard to the compliance of the APC with the provisions of Article L.2254-2 of the Labor Code, and its justification by the operational needs of the company, without it being necessary for the change, refused by the employee, to result from economic difficulties, technological changes, a reorganization of the company necessary for its competitiveness, or a complete cessation of the employer’s business.
Decision : Cass. Soc., 10 septembre 2025, n°23-23.231
Inability to perform the job and suitability of the reassignment position in light of the occupational physician’s recommendations
As part of its obligation to reassign an employee deemed unfit for work, the employer is presumed to have fulfilled this obligation as long as it offers a position that complies with the occupational physician’s recommendations.
The Court of Cassation has just clarified the scope of this presumption in a case where the employee contested the compatibility of the proposed job with the occupational physician’s recommendations set forth in the unfitness notice.
In this case, an employee was declared unfit for his position by the occupational physician. The employer offered him a sales position, taking into account the occupational physician’s opinion and recommendations. The employee refused this position, believing it was not compatible with the occupational physician’s recommendations.
The employer terminated the employee for unfitness, believing that it had fulfilled its obligation to reassign him. The employee challenged his termination before the labor court on the grounds that the employer had failed to fulfill its obligation to reassign him.
The Court of Cassation held that “ The Court of Appeal, having thus highlighted that the proposed sales position had not been previously approved by the occupational physician, correctly concluded that, in light of the employee’s objections regarding the compatibility of the proposed position with his health condition, it was incumbent upon the employer to seek a new opinion from the occupational physician, which the employer failed to demonstrate that it had done. ”
Decision : Cass. Soc., 22 octobre 2025, n°24-14.641
