- Equal treatment: meal vouchers also apply to teleworkers
Until now, the question of granting meal vouchers to teleworking employees has been contentious. While some judges favored the principle of equal treatment, others considered that an employer could refuse them in the absence of additional meal-related expenses.
In two rulings handed down on October 8, 2025, the Court of Cassation settled the matter: teleworking employees are entitled to meal vouchers under the same conditions as those working on-site.
Relying on Article L. 1222-9 of the French Labour Code, which provides that teleworkers enjoy the same rights as employees working within company premises, the Court clarified that the only criterion for granting meal vouchers is that the meal must fall within the employee’s working hours, regardless of the place or organization of work.
In a second ruling, the Court added that the practice of granting meal vouchers to employees located far from the company cafeteria cannot be suspended simply because they switch to telework.
💡 Key takeaway: The allocation of meal vouchers must now be identical for on-site and teleworking employees, provided their schedule includes a lunch break. Beyond this landmark decision, meal vouchers remain a useful tool for strengthening employees’ purchasing power, benefiting from favorable social and tax treatment (exemption from social contributions up to €7.26 per voucher issued since January 1, 2025).
- Dismissal and late delivery of end-of-contract documents
Under Articles L.1234-19, L.1234-20, and R.1234-9 of the French Labour Code, the employer must provide the employee’s end-of-contract documents upon termination.
In cases of dismissal for gross misconduct, the employment relationship ends immediately upon notification. The termination date is therefore the date the employer expresses the intent to end the employment — that is, the date the dismissal letter is sent by registered mail.
Relying on these provisions, the Court of Cassation overturned a Montpellier Court of Appeal decision, ruling that when a dismissal for gross misconduct is pronounced, the employer must provide the end-of-contract documents on the same date, given the absence of notice period.
In this case, the employee was dismissed on April 9, 2018, but received his end-of-contract documents on June 6, 2018. The Court of Appeal had rejected his claim for damages, reasoning that no harm could be proven given the hypothetical notice period.
The Court of Cassation logically quashed this decision, reaffirming that these documents must be delivered as of the dismissal date. Otherwise, the employee may claim damages, provided that harm can be demonstrated — for instance, delayed access to unemployment benefits. A short gap of a few days is, however, unlikely to cause prejudice, since unemployment benefits are deferred by a mandatory seven-day waiting period, in addition to any delay due to unused paid leave.
In light of this decision, companies must ensure that end-of-contract documents are sent promptly after dismissal for gross misconduct. This simultaneous issuance may raise logistical issues for employers who usually prepare such documents at month-end. To ensure legal security, practices may need adjusting.
- Adoption and medically assisted reproduction: strengthened protection and authorized absences
Adopted on June 19, 2025, and published in the Official Journal on July 1, 2025, Law No. 2025-595 strengthens the protection of individuals involved in a “parental project” through assisted reproduction (PMA/IVF) or adoption.
Henceforth, protection against discrimination linked to parental projects applies to all employees — men and women — engaged in a PMA or adoption process. Employers can no longer refuse hiring, terminate a contract, or transfer an employee on the basis of such participation. They are also prohibited from seeking or using related information.
Employees undertaking PMA treatments may now take paid leave to attend necessary medical appointments, procedures, or treatments. They may also accompany their spouse, civil partner, or cohabitant to up to three mandatory medical appointments per protocol.
Likewise, employees involved in an adoption project are entitled to leave to attend compulsory adoption interviews. A forthcoming decree will set the maximum number of absences allowed.
This law represents a major advance in equality and anti-discrimination policy: parental projects, whether through PMA or adoption, are now fully recognized within the professional sphere. Employers must adjust internal leave and HR management procedures accordingly.
- Automatic compensation in cases of proven trade union discrimination — a new reversal
In 2016, the Court of Cassation established that in the event of an employer’s breach of a legal or contractual obligation, trial judges have sovereign discretion to assess the existence and quantum of damages.
Since then, the Court has recognized various exceptions.
In a ruling dated September 10, 2025, it introduced a new one, holding that “the mere finding of trade union discrimination entitles the employee to compensation.”
In this case, a former staff representative dismissed for incapacity claimed damages for trade union discrimination. The Dijon Court of Appeal rejected his claim, holding that he had neither proven the damage nor needed further reparation since the court’s recognition of discrimination was itself compensatory.
The Court of Cassation overturned that decision, ruling that the mere finding of trade union discrimination automatically opens the right to compensation.
This surprising decision appears to rest on an unwritten, third criterion suggested by the Advocate General, based on both:
- the importance of the legal rule at stake, and
- the victim’s inability to prove the harm suffered.
Although not explicitly stated, it seems the Court relied on this reasoning.
If confirmed, this new standard could significantly broaden automatic compensation cases. However, recent rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union reaffirm that judges’ discretion to assess damages does not undermine the effectiveness of EU law, suggesting the French courts may maintain a case-by-case approach.
- Hidden cameras in the workplace: CNIL recalls legality requirements
In a decision dated September 18, 2025, the CNIL fined a company €100,000 for installing hidden cameras disguised as smoke detectors and recording employees’ conversations in storage areas. This ruling reiterates the strict conditions governing workplace video surveillance.
Hidden cameras may only be used exceptionally, where reasonable suspicion of serious misconduct exists, and with strict safeguards balancing corporate security and employee privacy.
To be lawful, such monitoring must be:
- temporary and strictly time-limited;
- documented and objectively justified;
- compliant with GDPR, following consultation with the Data Protection Officer.
In this case, the company failed to prove the temporary and proportionate nature of the system, nor its compliance with transparency or fairness obligations. The CNIL also noted excessive audio recording, lack of DPO involvement, and failure to report a personal data breach.
This decision reaffirms that hidden video surveillance is a highly exceptional measure that must observe robust proportionality and GDPR compliance safeguards.
