In a recent court decision, an employee who had worked for multiple companies was recognized by the primary health insurance fund as having developed bronchopulmonary cancer due to exposure to asbestos dust, a substance known to cause occupational diseases. The employee claimed that the inexcusable fault—meaning a failure by an employer to protect the worker from known risks—lay with a previous employer rather than their last one. Legal precedents allow workers to hold any of their former employers accountable in such cases. However, the employer accused of the fault did not deny the existence of the inexcusable fault but instead questioned whether the occupational disease was actually linked to asbestos exposure during the time the employee worked for that company. The court ruling from June 25, 2026, emphasized that before any discussion of inexcusable fault can take place, the employee must first establish that the exposure to the risk occurred during their time with a specific employer. The employer’s legal strategy was based on the idea that the employee needed to prove which employer was responsible for the asbestos exposure. However, the employee argued that a 2017 ruling by the second civil chamber had already stated that it was the employer’s responsibility to prove that there was no link between the disease and the employee’s work activities. In the June 25, 2026 ruling, the second civil chamber changed its stance, placing the burden of proof on the employee to show a direct link between the occupational disease and their work for a specific employer. If the employee fails to do so, the court will not even consider the question of inexcusable fault. This shift is seen as favorable to employers, as it removes the need for them to prove that no risk exposure occurred during the employee’s time with the company. Now, both the employee must prove that they were exposed to the risk and that the employer was at fault. However, this can be challenging, especially for employees who have worked for multiple companies. Access to documents such as internal descriptions of workspaces, equipment, and records of other employees who may have had similar conditions is often difficult unless the employee requests the employer to provide them. These documents could be crucial in establishing the necessary link between the disease and the employer in question. The stakes are high for employees, as being recognized for an employer’s inexcusable fault can lead to additional compensation under Article L452-1 of the Social Security Code. However, the new legal standard makes it harder for employees to prove their case. While employers are favored by this change, they are not entirely protected from potential reversals. It remains to be seen whether trial judges will be lenient in accepting the evidence employees provide to prove their exposure to occupational risks. The positions taken by both the Court of Cassation and the trial courts will be important to watch in the coming months.