A French court ruled that an employee dismissed for moral harassment cannot be reinstated after claiming retirement rights, but is still entitled to compensation.
Employee dismissed in 2016 seeks reinstatement
An employee was hired by the Institut supérieur de commerce association in 2003 as a part-time professor and later became a full-time professor. He was dismissed in 2016 for a valid and serious reason but believed the dismissal was null due to moral harassment. He filed a case with the prud'homal jurisdiction, seeking recognition of the nullity and compensation.Court orders reinstatement and compensation
In 2022, the Court of Cassation referred the case back to the Paris Court of Appeal. In 2025, the court ordered the employee’s reinstatement and required the association to pay an indemnity covering the period from his dismissal to his reinstatement. However, the employee had already claimed his retirement rights, which the association challenged.Association appeals reinstatement ruling
The Institut supérieur de commerce association criticized the Paris Court of Appeal for ordering reinstatement, arguing it was impossible due to the employee’s retirement. It claimed the court should have checked if the employee had already claimed his retirement rights before ruling. The association also cited a violation of Article L1152-3 of the Labor Code, which deals with the nullity of dismissals due to moral harassment.Court of Cassation limits reinstatement
The Court of Cassation partially annulled the Paris Court of Appeal’s ruling without referring the case back. It stated that while the employee is entitled to compensation for the period of dismissal, reinstatement is impossible if retirement rights have been claimed. The court ruled that compensation should be limited to the period between dismissal and retirement, not reinstatement.Ruling clarifies compensation rights
The October 2026 ruling clarified that when an employee is dismissed due to moral harassment and has claimed retirement rights, reinstatement is not possible. However, the right to compensation remains, limited to the period before retirement. The court also adjusted the compensation amount by subtracting any replacement income the employee received during the period of dismissal.Procedural significance of the ruling
The ruling is significant for its procedural approach, as the Court of Cassation directly addressed the merits of the case without referring it back. It rejected the reinstatement request and set the compensation principle directly, emphasizing the balance between compensating the employee for the harm caused by a null dismissal and respecting the employee’s personal circumstances, such as retirement.
