French Employment law - Banking : Unfair Dismissal, failure to comply with maximum working hour limits, and breach of the duty to ensure safety: a bank ordered to pay € 91,900 to a manager (CPH, June 5th, 2026)

In a judgment dated June 5th, 2026, the Paris Employment Tribunal (management section) / conseil de prud'hommes ordered a bank to pay a manager the following:

. €73,900 as compensation for dismissal without a real and serious cause;

. €5,000 in damages for failure to comply with maximum daily working hour limits;

. €5,000 in damages for failure to comply with maximum weekly working hour limits;

. €5,000 in damages for breach of the duty to ensure safety and prevention;

. €3,000 under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The employee has filed an appeal against the judgment of the Paris Employment Tribunal.

1) GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION:

The Paris Employment Tribunal (management section), having deliberated, and ruling publicly in an adversarial proceeding as a court of first instance:

. Orders the joinder of this case with the case registered under case reference number [RG number];

. Rules that the "fixed-day" working agreement (*convention forfait jours*) is valid;

. Orders Company Y, operating under the trade name Z, to pay Mr. [X] the following amounts:

- €73,900 as compensation for dismissal without a real and serious cause;

- €5,000.00 in damages for failure to comply with maximum daily working hour limits;

- €5,000.00 in damages for failure to comply with maximum weekly working hour limits;

- €5,000.00 in damages for breach of the obligation regarding safety and prevention;

With interest at the legal rate from the date the judgment is rendered.

- €3,000.00 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

. Orders Company Y to reimburse France Travail for the "return-to-work" allowance (unemployment benefit) paid for a period of three months.

. Dismisses the remainder of Mr. [X]’s claims.

. Dismisses the counterclaim filed by Company Y, operating under the trade name Z.

. Orders Company Y to pay the legal costs.

I/ REGARDING THE LACK OF A GENUINE AND SERIOUS CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL

Under Article L.1232-1 of the Labor Code, any dismissal for personal reasons must be justified by a genuine and serious cause. that is to say, objective, accurate, and materially verifiable facts of sufficient gravity to justify the termination of the employment contract.

In accordance with Article L.1235-1 of the Labor Code and Article 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is for the judge to assess whether the grounds invoked by the employer are real and serious, based on the evidence presented by each party; any doubt must be resolved in favor of the employee.

In the present case, the employer maintains that the shortcomings set out in the dismissal letter are sufficiently serious to justify the termination of the employment contract.

The employee, for his part, contests both the material reality and the gravity of the alleged facts, arguing that the dismissal is part of a process of gradual marginalization unrelated to any actual misconduct.

As the dismissal letter defines the scope of the dispute, it is necessary to examine objectively—in light of the evidence provided by the parties—whether the grievances cited meet the criteria required by law.

It is evident from the materials submitted to the proceedings that, in the years leading up to the termination, the employee received positive professional evaluations.

The employer notably acknowledged:

. the achievement of his objectives,

. the quality of his management,

. his involvement in key strategic projects,

. as well as a level of personal commitment that at times extended beyond the scope of his contractual duties.

These points, which are not seriously contested by the employer, establish that the employee

was not perceived as underperforming or at fault in the execution of his duties during a

significant period leading up to his dismissal.

Admittedly, the employer argues that the subsequent emergence of shortcomings may justify calling this positive assessment into question.

However, such a shift would require:

. either the existence of newly established facts,

. or an objectively demonstrated deterioration in the employee’s conduct or work performance.

Yet, the short interval between the recognition of the employee’s performance and the initiation of dismissal proceedings inevitably leads the court to question the credibility and substance of the grievances cited.

In the dismissal letter, the employer alleges behaviors that it deems incompatible with the managerial duties performed by the employee.

Such behaviors, if proven, could indeed constitute a serious basis for disciplinary action.

However, it must be noted that the employer has failed to provide any objective, precise, or detailed evidence to substantiate the actual occurrence of these behaviors.

There are no detailed witness accounts, internal reports, formal warnings, or prior disciplinary sanctions to corroborate these claims.

The employee explicitly contests these accusations, maintaining that no specific issues had been raised with him prior to the dismissal proceedings.

Under these circumstances, these grievances appear to be based essentially on unilateral assessments that fall short of the requirements set forth in Article L.1232-1 of the Labor Code; the Council reiterates that a "real and serious cause" for dismissal cannot be established through mere, unsupported allegations.

The employer also accuses the employee of shortcomings in the oversight and organization of certain tasks falling within the scope of his duties. On this point, the employee argues that he carried out his duties within a context of a heavy workload and organizational change, regularly providing the requested information whenever it was practically possible for him to do so, and explaining the constraints he encountered.

The employer, for its part, fails to demonstrate:

• the existence of a clear-cut refusal to fulfill professional obligations;

• a pattern of unjustified shortcomings;

• or, most importantly, the impact of these events on the company’s operations.

However, not every shortcoming automatically constitutes grounds for dismissal; it must be of sufficient gravity to render the continuation of the employment contract impossible—a point the employer fails to establish in this case.

Furthermore, the case file indicates that the dismissal occurred against a backdrop of a substantial change in the employee’s professional situation—taking place prior to the termination—characterized notably by:

• a significant reduction in the scope of his responsibilities;

• a change in his hierarchical reporting line;

• and his gradual exclusion from strategic decisions and discussions.

The employer maintains that these developments were the result of legitimate organizational choices.

Nevertheless, the fact that the changes to the employee’s duties coincided with the initiation of dismissal proceedings serves as an additional factor in assessing the credibility of the alleged grievances—grievances that appear all the less substantiated given that they are not supported by any specific, concrete evidence.

Finally, the information regarding the employee’s workload points to a sustained and continuous professional commitment. While these factors are not, in themselves, sufficient to rule out any misconduct, they do serve to weaken the employer’s argument that the employee was disengaged, disorganized, or intentionally failing to perform their duties.

These elements must be taken into account when assessing the overall credibility and gravity of the grievances cited.

In light of all these factors, the Council finds that the allegations set forth in the dismissal letter are not substantiated by precise, objective, and tangible evidence; furthermore, their gravity has not been demonstrated. Moreover, these events occurred against a backdrop of marginalization and prior reorganization—circumstances that undermine the claim that the dismissal was based exclusively on misconduct attributable to the employee.

Consequently, the Council concludes that the dismissal lacks the "real and serious" grounds required under Articles L.1232-1 and L.1235-1 of the Labor Code.

Accordingly, the Council rules that the dismissal is without real and serious cause within the meaning of Articles L.1232-1 and L.1235-1 of the Labor Code. It orders Company X to pay the employee the sum of 73,900 euros as compensation for a dismissal lacking real and serious cause—pursuant to Article L.1235-3 of the Labor Code—to redress the harm resulting from the unjustified loss of employment.

To read the full brief, click the link below.

https://consultation.avocat.fr/blog/frederic-chhum/article-2984767-secteur-banque-une-banque-condamnee-a-payer-91-900-euros-a-un-manager-pour-licenciement-sans-cause-non-respect-des-durees-maximales-de-travail-et-manquement-a-l-obligation-de-securite-cph-paris-5-juin-2026.html

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et ancien membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300

Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

Lille: : 45, Rue Saint Etienne 59000 Lille – Ligne directe +(33) 03.20.57.53.24