"When the employer decides to dismiss an employee, he notifies his decision by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt" (Article L. 1232-6 of the French Labor Code). This is the only valid way to pronounce a dismissal in France since only this written notification marks the termination of the employment contract.

French law therefore excludes any form of dismissal where the employee, without prior notice, is summoned to collect his belongings, return his access badge and computer, before being immediately invited to leave the company.

Indeed, under French law, any unequivocal expression of intent to terminate an employee’s contract prior to the formal delivery of a dismissal letter renders the dismissal void of real and serious cause.

A new example of behavior to be proscribed was illustrated by the Cassation Court (the French supreme court) in a ruling handed down on June 11th, 2025 (n°23-21.819):

The removal of the employee’s company vehicle, keys, access badge, and work files prior to the delivery of the dismissal letter constitutes clear evidence of an irrevocable intent to terminate the employment contract. As a result, the dismissal is deemed to lack a real and serious cause under French law.

Thus, as long as the dismissal letter setting out the reasons for the termination of the contract hasn’t been formally delivered, the employer must refrain from any conduct or measure that could reveal their intentions or suggest an irrevocable decision to terminate the employment relationship. This ruling therefore serves as a reminder of the best practices to be observed in such circumstances.

What best practices should employers adopt, and which behaviors must be avoided, prior to the formal delivery of the dismissal letter? A guide to the 'Do's and Don'ts' of dismissal notification:

• Don’t – Mention a final decision during the preliminary interview.

• Do – Wait for the dismissal letter to be sent before announcing the dismissal : Never inform the employee verbally that they are, or will be, dismissed. Ensure that any managers or colleagues who may interact with the employee do not disclose the decision (even informally or as a matter of courtesy) before the letter is formally delivered. Avoid phone calls, text messages, or emails that suggest or indicate that the termination has been decided prior to the official notification. 

• Do – Accurately document each step : keep evidence of the date at which the dismissal letter is sent (proof of deposit, acknowledgment of receipt). In case of an oral announcement, you must be able to prove that the dismissal letter was sent prior to the call, SMS, or verbal announcement (Cass. soc., September 28, 2022, n°21-15.606). 

• Don’t – Do not withdraw access to work tools and means : do not retrieve the access badge, company car, or professional tools before sending the dismissal letter as the premature and unjustified withdrawal of these elements constitutes an implicit contract termination according to very recent case law (Cass. soc., June 11, 2025, n°23-21.819). 

• Do – Draft a factual and clear dismissal letter : it is essential that the dismissal letter is structured, precise, and allows for objective verification of the reasons invoked, without necessarily dating them precisely (Cass. , May 6 2025, n ° 23-19.214). 

To be noted for employers:

There should be no packing of personal belongings, no return of badges, and no expression of intent to terminate. As long as the dismissal letter has not been sent, the employment contract remains in force.

Introduced nearly ten years ago into French law and deeply modified in 2022, the status of whistleblower remains as relevant as ever. A recent ruling by the French Supreme Court reaffirms the strict framework of legal protection associated with this status.

Since Law No. 2022-401 of March 21, 2022, the whistleblower is defined as:

• a person,
• who reports or discloses,
• without direct financial compensation,
• in good faith,
• information concerning a crime, an offense, a threat or harm to the general interest, a violation or an attempt to conceal a violation of an international commitment regularly ratified or approved by France, a unilateral act of an international organization taken on the basis of such a commitment, European Union law, or law or regulation.

Employees, former employees, and job applicants, shareholders, members of the administrative, management, or supervisory body, as well as the company's contractors and their subcontractors, may notably be recognized as whistleblowers.

Subject to fulfilling the aforementioned conditions and complying with the reporting procedure, the whistleblower then benefits from protection that prevents them from being sanctioned, notably from dismissal, for the reported facts (Art. L. 1121-2 of the Labor Code). Failing this, such a measure is subject to nullity (Art. L. 1132-4 of the Labor Code).

In light of these reminders, one of the legal strategies that the employer may attempt to implement is to challenge the whistleblower's good faith in order to deprive them of the benefit of this protection against dismissal.

The concept of "good faith," which falls under the sovereign assessment of judges, is the subject of numerous rulings, and the French Supreme Court provided a new illustration of this principle in its judgment of May 6 (Cass. Soc, May 6, 2025, No. 23-15.641). 

In this case, an employee hired as an industrial risk inspector in an insurance company triggers two reports to the French Anti-Corruption Agency concerning facts that could be criminally qualified as tax fraud and misuse of corporate assets. 

The employer dismisses the employee for gross misconduct, considering that this denunciation resulted from an intention to harm related to a personal conflict: the employer indicated that he had refused a salary increase to this employee concurrently with the triggering of these alerts.

Considering that the employer did not provide any evidence capable of establishing the employee's bad faith, and that the employee's decision to trigger the alert stemmed from a divergence in analysis regarding the criminal qualification of the reported facts, the High Court dismisses the employer's arguments, deeming that the employee's bad faith could not be characterized in this situation. 

The Court thus confirms that bad faith can only result from the knowledge of the reported facts’ falsity and not from the mere circumstance that the reported facts are not established (Cass. Soc., July 8, 2020, No. 18-13.593; Cass. soc., February 15, 2023, No. 21-20.342).

Similarly, the Court of Appeal of Amiens recently ruled that the intention of the employee "whistleblower" to negotiate a mutual termination agreement concurrently with the initiation of his report did not allow for the dismissal of his good faith and thus to sanction him (Court of Appeal of Amiens, Sept. 4, 2024, n^o 23/03040).

These decisions therefore call for the utmost vigilance towards employees who claim whistleblower status, even if their report is not without ulterior motives.