Browse through brief employment and labor law updates from around the globe. Contact a Littler attorney for more information or view our global locations.

View all Q3 2020 Global Guide Quarterly updates   Download full Q3 2020 Global Guide Quarterly

Long-Term Partial Activity Scheme to Prevent Dismissals

New Order or Decree

Author: Guillaume Desmoulin, Partner – Fromont Briens | Littler

The partial activity scheme allows an employer facing economic hardship to reduce employees’ working time while also receiving remuneration from the French government. The Law n°2020-734 of June 17, 2020, sets a new scheme of “long term” partial activity (APLD) to support companies facing a long period of decrease in business. Under Decree n°2020-926 of July 28, 2020, the “long term” partial activity scheme, which may last until June 30, 2022, will provide support businesses and employees in relation to indemnification for working time reduction and commitments for job protection and training. This new APLD scheme is more generous than the standard furlough scheme.

Use of Private Social Media Account to Support a Dismissal

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Author: Guillaume Desmoulin, Partner – Fromont Briens | Littler

On September 30, 2020, the French Supreme Court held that the law on evidence can, under certain circumstances, justify presenting information obtained from an employee’s private social media account to justify a dismissal, provided evidence is essential to the case and any infringement of privacy is proportionate to the procedural purpose. Here, an employer in the fashion industry dismissed a project manager for gross misconduct after she published pictures of a new and confidential collection on her private social media account, allowing competitors to see it. The French Supreme Court for the first time found that using the information from social media was not an infringement to the employee’s right to privacy because it was obtained through legal means (i.e., another employee who had subscribed to the social media account had provided it). Further, the Court ruled that any infringement to the employee’s privacy was proportionate to the procedural purpose, which is to protect the company’s legitimate interests, especially the confidentiality of its business.

Evidence of Bad Faith in Allegations of Bullying

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Author: Guillaume Desmoulin, Partner – Fromont Briens | Littler

According to French case law, an employee alleging harassment or bullying cannot be terminated for those reasons, except if the employer can establish that the employee made such allegations in bad faith. On September 16, 2020, the French Supreme Court confirmed the decision of a court of appeal, which had ruled that an employee had made allegations of workplace bullying in bad faith, being fully aware that the allegations were unfounded. This bad faith resulted from the employee’s contradictory behavior: While the employee had expressed a willingness to discuss the issue with the employer, in actuality, the employee had aborted the employer’s different attempts to reach a solution. The Supreme Court also ruled that the absence of any reference to bad faith in the dismissal letter was not an obstacle to the demonstration of bad faith before a court of justice.

Discrimination Based on Physical Appearance

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Author: Guillaume Desmoulin, Partner – Fromont Briens | Littler

On July 8, 2020, the French Supreme Court rendered a decision on a dismissal based on the employee’s beard shaved in a way that represented a political or religious perspective. The employer claimed that the employee’s physical appearance endangered its American clients’ security in Yemen. Without specific internal rules or a contractual clause restricting employees’ physical appearance, the high court noted that the dismissal was discriminatory based on the employee’s political or religious belief and not on a professional requirement. Further, the Court noted that professional requirements must be based on objective job duties or working conditions, rather than on subjective grounds, such as the employer’s desire to satisfy customers’ expectations. The Court further ruled that the legitimate interest to protect staff and customers can justify restricting employees’ rights and freedoms, and thus can allow a neutral appearance requirement if the employer can demonstrate it is necessary to protect staff and customers from actual danger.