The "right to alert" (droit d’alerte) refers to an employee's right to warn their employer if they observe a serious or imminent danger threatening themselves or their colleagues, which may be exercised in particular in cases of serious and environmental risks. The employee, exercising this right, benefits from the protective status of a whistleblower, particularly regarding protection against dismissal or any discriminatory measures. 

Qualifying as a whistleblower requires the employee to have acted not only in good faith but also in a disinterested manner; these two conditions are cumulative.  

For reference, we previously addressed the issue of a whistleblower's "bad faith" in our Actance Tribune N° 40 (July 2025). We noted then that the French Supreme Court (“Cour de cassation”) had ruled that bad faith can only result from the knowledge of the falsity of the reported facts, and not merely from the circumstance that the facts are ultimately not established.  

In the case leading to the ruling of March 18, 2026, an employee raised an environmental alert regarding the destruction of protected species on a construction site managed by his employer. The employer subsequently argued that this alert had been triggered solely to benefit from whistleblower status, without any genuine intention to report a risk.  

For the first time, the French Supreme Court addressed the "disinterested" nature of the report, specifying that an employee acts in an "interested manner" when acting "for a purpose unrelated to the public interest."  

Consequently, one may infer from this ruling that an employee who acts out of personal interest, pursuing an objective other than the public interest, could be denied the benefit of whistleblower status. 

Our Actance Tribune N° 44 (April 2nd, 2026) was dedicated to the role of internal investigations in harassment matters, in light of the decision of January 14th, 2026 (N° 24-19.544). We pointed out that internal investigations are not mandatory; they constitute one piece of evidence among others, and their probative value is subject to the sovereign assessment of the trial judges (juges du fond). 

This decision of April 1st, 2026 (N° 24-19.994), provides an important clarification: an internal investigation conducted promptly and diligently following a report of harassment may, in itself, be sufficient to release the employer from their safety obligation (obligation de sécurité), even when harassment is ultimately not recognized.  

The French Supreme Court (“Cour de cassation”) ruled that the conduct of a serious and structured internal investigation by the employer following an allegation of moral harassment is sufficient to demonstrate that the employer did not fail their duty to ensure safety at work.  

Practical Takeaway: This decision reinforces the importance of conducting a clear and properly formalized procedure for handling harassment reports, including when the facts are uncertain or disputed. An investigation conducted rigorously and faithfully documented now constitutes an effective means of dismissing claims of employer liability for breach of safety obligations. 

Under French law, freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom protected by several sources, such as Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.  

This freedom of expression also exists in the workplace, as first ruled by the French Supreme Court in the landmark "Clavaud" judgment of April 28th, 1988, which established the principle that, barring abuse, an employee enjoys freedom of expression (Cass. soc., April 28th, 1988, N° 87-41.804).  

This principle is now enshrined in the Labor Code (Code du travail), specifically in Article L.1121-1.  

In a ruling delivered on April 1st, 2026, the French Supreme Court held that critical remarks made during a management committee meeting, even when sarcastic, do not constitute an abuse of the employee's freedom of expression. Tone alone does not constitute misconduct. The dismissal of an employee for making incisive but non-defamatory remarks within an internal setting carries a high risk of being declared null and void. 

In contrast to the decision mentioned above, protection ends when an employee engages in a deliberate campaign to discredit management by uttering repeated defamatory remarks and taking actions aimed at undermining their supervisor’s authority, both internally and with shareholders. 

Under such circumstances, the French Supreme Court ruled that dismissal for gross misconduct (faute lourde) was justified. 

• The distinguishing criteria are cumulative and decisive: 

• The behavior was repeated, not isolated; 

• It consisted of defamatory remarks and active steps to discredit the company; 

• It went beyond the scope of the company to reach shareholders; 

• It revealed a manifest intent to cause harm, a characteristic element of gross misconduct under French law. 

It is therefore possible to distinguish the boundary between protected criticism and sanctionable behavior: it lies not only in the content but in the repetition, the intent, and the scope of the behavior.