Publications

Dismissal due to physical incapacity, with release from redeployment: there is no need to inform the employee of the reasons for precluding redeployment

Cass. Labor Div., 11 June  2025, no. 24-15.297

An employee was declared unfit for work by the occupational doctor and then dismissed due to physical incapacity and an inability to be redeployed. The doctor’s opinion stated that “any continued employment would be seriously prejudicial to the employee’s health and that this precluded any redeployment”.

The employee challenged her dismissal in court, arguing that:

  • Her employer did not notify her, in writing, of the reasons preventing her from being redeployed, even though this is an obligation under Article L.1226-2-1 of the Labour Code, which applies to the employer in all circumstances (including where redeployment is dispensed with);
  • As the occupational doctor’s territorial jurisdiction is limited to the establishment to which he is attached, the exemption from seeking redeployment only concerns the establishment to which he has been appointed. Accordingly, the employer should, in her view, have sought a further opinion from the occupational doctor on the scope of the release to seek redeployment.

Having been dismissed by the judges ruling on the merits of the case, the employee appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation dismissed her appeal. For the first time, the Court affirmed that in the presence of an opinion releasing the employer from its obligation to seek redeployment, the employer:

  • has no obligation to notify the employee in writing of the reasons preventing his or her redeployment, prior to initiating the dismissal procedure;
  • nor is required to seek a further opinion from the occupational doctor: the employer cannot therefore be criticised for failing to look for an alternative position in the company’s other establishments.

Thus, the Court of Cassation provides further clarification as to the scope of the obligation to notify the employee in writing of the reasons opposing their redeployment.