France
Redundancy Plan (PSE) – Valid conditioning of top up severance on no termination litigation (case law)
Impact date: 17 January 2024 (immediate effect as appellate case law). The Versailles Court of Appeal upheld a PSE (Redundancy Plan) clause making a supra legal/top up severance payable only if the employee does not bring litigation challenging the termination. The court reasoned that the PSE top up (framed as damages for job loss) shares the same purpose as the statutory unfair dismissal award under Article L.1235 3 (compensation for the loss of employment), so both cannot be cumulated. The mechanism deferring payment until one month after the 12 month limitation period, and only if no termination claim was filed, is therefore legitimate to avoid double recovery. If the employee litigates and wins, the statutory award is paid and the PSE top up is not.
Employer implications/action needed In a PSE, you may condition a top‑up severance on no termination‑related claim being filed, provided the clause clearly states non‑cumul with L.1235‑3 damages and targets the same head of loss (job loss).
Draft the clause to release payment after the limitation period (e.g., 12 months + one month) and clarify that the condition does not bar litigation on other contract‑execution issues (e.g., unpaid variable pay).
Employer risk If the wording looks like a waiver of the right to sue (instead of a conditional benefit preventing double recovery), or if the top up does not truly mirror the purpose of L.1235 3 damages, the clause could be struck or allow cumulative payments.
Statutory minimum wage (SMIC) – 1 January 2026 revaluation
Impact date: 1 January 2026 France’s statutory minimum wage, known as the SMIC (“salaire minimum interprofessionnel de croissance”), is revalued annually.
From 1 January 2026, the SMIC increases by +1.18% to:
- €2.02 gross/hour (previously €11.88)
- €1,823.03 gross/month for a full‑time 35‑hour week
The “minimum garanti” (used for calculating certain benefits) rises to €4.25.
Employer implications/action needed Update payroll and ensure all minimum paid employees meet the new threshold. Be careful: sector level collective agreements often re negotiate/adjust their own minimum pay scales after a SMIC uplift. You may need to update your branch minima grids in addition to the statutory floor, depending on your applicable collective agreement and any January 2026 updates.
Employer risk Underpayment claims (back pay, penalties) if salaries are not aligned with the statutory SMIC and, where applicable, with branch level minima.
Amicable termination agreement – Employer contribution raised to 40%
Impact date: 1 January 2026 The “rupture conventionnelle” is France’s mutually agreed termination of an indefinite term employment contract.
From 1 January 2026, the employer’s specific social contribution on termination indemnities increases from 30% to 40%. This applies to the portion of the indemnity exempt from standard social security contributions. The applicable rate is determined by the effective contract end date, not the signature date.
Employer implications/action needed Update cost simulations for negotiated exits, adjust budgets, and ensure DSN declarations reflect the 40% rate. Review ongoing terminations where the end date falls in 2026.
Employer risk If the wrong rate is applied, URSSAF may reassess and impose penalties for under declared contributions.
Freedom of expression (case law)
Impact date: 14 January 2026 (immediate effect as case law) Recent rulings of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation, 14 January 2026) clarify that when an employee claims that a disciplinary measure infringes their freedom of expression, judges must conduct a full proportionality assessment. This requires balancing the employee’s right to free speech with the employer’s legitimate interest in protecting its organization. The court must examine: the content of the statements, the context in which they were made, their scope and impact within the company, and any negative consequences for the employer.
The court also confirmed that disloyal behavior does not fall within the scope of freedom of expression, meaning that a dismissal based on disloyal conduct can be valid even where the employee attempts to frame the matter as an expression related issue.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should ensure that any disciplinary action involving employee speech is supported by a documented proportionality analysis. HR and legal teams should update internal processes, disciplinary letters and dismissal templates to reflect this new judicial standard.
Employer risk Higher risk of annulment of sanctions or dismissals if the employer cannot demonstrate that the sanction was necessary, suitable and proportionate. Failure to apply the proportionality test increases exposure to claims of violation of freedom of expression and potential nullity of the dismissal.
Harassment – Freedom of evidence (case law)
Impact date: 14 January 2026 (immediate effect as case law) The French Supreme Court held that employers are not legally required to conduct an internal investigation when a sexual harassment allegation is reported. Judges must therefore assess the value and weight of all evidence submitted based on the principle of freedom of evidence in labour disputes.
Once the employee presents facts suggesting potential harassment, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that harassment is not established. The court confirmed that the absence of an internal investigation does not prevent the employer from proving misconduct through other evidence (statements, attestations, psychological assessments, police complaint, etc.).
The court overturned the appellate decision for wrongly considering the absence of an internal investigation as a decisive deficiency in the employer’s burden of proof.
Employer implications/action needed We still highly recommend carrying out an investigation in case an employee make harassment claims.
Employer risk Risk of the dismissal being deemed without real and serious cause if the employer fails to produce sufficient evidence, but not merely because no internal investigation was carried out.
Days per year working time scheme and employee consent (case law)
Impact date: 21 January 2026 (immediate effect as case law) The French Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot impose, via a Collective Performance Agreement (APC), an increase in the number of days included in an employee’s days per year working time scheme without the employee’s explicit consent. Even though an APC may normally override incompatible contractual clauses, the court held that changing the number of days worked under an individual days per year working time scheme necessarily constitutes a modification of the employment contract, which cannot be imposed unilaterally, even in the context of an APC.
Employer implications/action needed Employers must ensure that any increase in the number of days under a days per year working time scheme is treated as a contractual change requiring the employee’s explicit consent.
Employer risk Imposing such a change without consent exposes employers to claims for unlawful modification of the employment contract, nullification of the change, damages, and a risk of the employee seeking a judicial termination of the contract.
Protected employee – Sector downturn can justify economic dismissal (CE, 11 Feb. 2026, n° 497016)
Impact date: 11 February 2026 (immediate effect as administrative case law) The French Conseil d’État confirmed that the safeguarding of the company’s competitiveness can justify the economic dismissal of a protected employee, provided the employer establishes a real threat to competitiveness. Crucially, this threat may stem not only from a deterioration of the company’s own competitive position within its sector but also from a predictable deterioration of the sector itself.
The administrative authority (Labour Inspectorate), when authorizing an economic dismissal, must verify the reality of the economic reason, even where the employee has refused a contractual change proposed as part of a reorganization aimed at safeguarding competitiveness.
The Conseil d’État clarified that the threat to competitiveness is not limited to the loss of market share: it may equally arise where the market is shrinking or undergoing structural transformation. This position aligns with prior case law recognizing that reorganization for anticipated economic difficulties—even before measurable financial indicators decline—may constitute a valid economic motive.
Employer implications/action needed Employers may rely on anticipated market decline, technological or regulatory changes, or shrinking demand to justify a reorganization for safeguarding competitiveness, even for protected employees, provided they can substantiate the predictable sector wide deterioration.
When seeking authorization to dismiss a protected employee, employers must document:
- the evolving or declining market conditions
- the anticipated impact on the company’s activity or competitiveness and
- the link between these elements and the proposed organizational change
Employer risk Risk of the dismissal being deemed without real and serious cause if the employer fails to produce sufficient evidence, but not merely because no internal investigation was carried out.
Economic dismissal – Redeployment obligation extends to companies controlled by the same individual (case law)
Impact date: 11 February 2026 (immediate effect as administrative case law) The French Supreme Court ruled that, for the purposes of the redeployment obligation under Article L. 1233 4 of the Labour Code, the existence of a group must be assessed based on the control criteria defined in the Commercial Code, even where such control is exercised by a natural person acting as manager.
In this case, two companies employing the same employee were both managed by the same individual, who also held majority shareholding in each company (majority in one entity and 70% of the capital in the other). The court held that this situation created a capitalistic control link, meaning the two companies formed a redeployment group.
Since the employer failed to search for redeployment opportunities within the second company, the economic dismissal was deemed without real and serious cause.
Employer implications/action needed Employers must assess redeployment obligations across all entities connected through a control relationship, including cases where the same individual manager controls multiple companies. Before implementing an economic dismissal, employers should verify whether any form of capitalistic or managerial control creates a group within which redeployment must be explored.
Employer risk Significant risk of the economic dismissal being declared unfair if employers fail to include all relevant entities in the redeployment perimeter. A narrow interpretation of the group that excludes companies controlled by the same individual exposes the employer to annulment of the dismissal and associated financial liabilities.
Introduction of a €50 legal aid contribution for claims filed before labour courts (Loi n°2026 103, 19 Feb. 2026)
Impact date: Effective no later than 1 March 2026, with the exact implementation date to be set by a forthcoming decree. The 2026 Finance Act introduces a new €50 “legal aid contribution” payable for each claim filed before a labour court (conseil de prud’hommes) or a judicial court. The fee will take the form of a dematerialized stamp and is payable by the party initiating the proceedings. Beneficiaries of legal aid (aide juridictionnelle) are exempt. The contribution finances the legal aid system and will apply to any claim filed from a date set by decree, and no later than 1 March 2026.
Employer implications/action needed This new contribution is not expected to materially deter employees from filing claims, except perhaps in cases involving very low-value disputes, where the cost–benefit balance may shift slightly.
Employer risk N/A
Upcoming measure on birth leave
Impact date: 1 July 2026. The measure applies to children born or adopted from 1 January 2026 onwards. The French Government has confirmed the creation of birth leave which does not replace the current parental leave but is added to existing maternity, paternity and adoption leaves.
The details have now been finalized as follows:
- a duration of one or two months per parent, which can be taken at the same time or successively, either in a single block or split into two separate one‑month periods
- the leave must be taken within nine months after birth or adoption, and only after maternity, paternity or adoption leave has ended
- compensation by Social Security at 70% of net salary for the first month and 60% for the second, within the Social Security ceiling; employer top‑up remains optional
- no employer approval is required. Employees must give one month’s notice (reduced to 15 days if taken immediately after paternity or adoption leave)
Employer implications/action needed Employers should prepare for employees going on birth leave and if applicable, update HR processes and templates accordingly, and monitor remaining administrative guidance.
Employer risk N/A
Immigration law
Impact date: To 31 December 2026 A discretionary power has been given to the préfets until 31 December 2026 to regularize illegal workers working in jobs and geographical areas where there is a recruitment shortage. In practice, this involves granting a one year’s residence permit, applicable if the individual has:
- Worked as a salaried employee in a job included in the list of jobs and geographical areas that have experienced recruitment difficulties for at least 12 consecutive or non-consecutive months over the last 24 months
- Held a job in one of these jobs or areas
- Proven uninterrupted residence in France for at least three years and
- A clean criminal record (“bulletin n°2”) with no convictions, inabilities or disqualifications
There is discretion to refuse regularization even if the above conditions are met. Préfets will have to take into account the social and family integration of the illegal workers, whether they comply with public order, whether they are integrated into French society and whether they embrace the way of life and values of French society and the principles of the Republic.
Other changes include training for foreign non-French speaking employees, and social security benefits for foreign nationals who are not EU nationals.
Employer implications/action needed Employers should note the changes and review their policies and procedures for the employment of foreign workers to ensure compliance.
Employer risk Employers that fail to comply with the new requirements risk the payment of damages. Employers should remain alert to the prohibition on hiring or employing a foreign worker without authorization (such offence being punished by criminal penalties and administrative sanctions).
Contact

© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.
