Thales case: the French Supreme Court strengthens whistleblowers’ protection against employer’s retaliations
In this decision, the Cour de cassation ruled that the juge des référés must take all necessary measures to put an end to the manifestly unlawful disturbance resulting from the dismissal of a whistleblower and, in particular, determine whether the employer can prove that its decision to dismiss is duly justified under Article L.1132-3-3 of the French Labor Code.
The adoption in France of the Law n°2016-1691 of 9 December 2016, on transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life, known as the “Sapin II Law”, has led to the recognition of the status of whistleblowers and the creation of a framework providing numerous rights.[1] However, some considered this framework inadequate when dealing with the practical difficulties whistleblowers encounter, particularly regarding protection and support.[2] Thus, to address these issues and to transpose the European Parliament and Council’s Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of October 23, 2019, on the Protection of persons who report breaches of European Union law,[3] the French Parliament adopted Law n°2022-401 of 21 March 2022, known as the “Waserman Law”, to improve the protection of whistleblowers.
While legislators have developed the law, French judges have also worked to provide the details and clarifications needed to define precise regulations governing whistleblowers.[4] In this regard, on 1 February 2023, the French Supreme Court (hereinafter “Cour de cassation”) issued a decision strengthening whistleblower’s protection in case of retaliatory dismissal by their employer, in the context of a case involving the company Thales SIX GTS France (hereinafter “Thales”) and one of its employees.
The Cour de cassation‘s decision dated 1 February 2023 revisits the jurisdiction of the juge des référés to rule on the substance of a whistleblower’s dismissal following the reporting of an alert, and the lightened burden of proof that whistleblowers benefit in the context of an appeal against such dismissal.
The Cour de cassation considered that the juge des référés had jurisdiction to rule on the substance of a dismissal following the reporting of an alert
In line with the Waserman Law, which reminds and reinforces the prohibition of retaliatory measures against whistleblowers,[5] the Cour de cassation issued a decision on 1 February 2023, in a case in which an employee allegedly suffered numerous retaliatory measures before finally being dismissed, following a denunciation she made of facts likely to be qualified as corruption and influence peddling.[6]
Based on article 12 of the Sapin II law,[7] the employee referred the case to the juge des référés for recognition of her status as a whistleblower and for the annulment of her dismissal, as she considered it to be a retaliatory measure taken after her alert. She wanted to be reinstated within Thales and paid the salaries she had been deprived of.[8]
The Emergency Procedure of the Labor Court (hereinafter “formation des référés du conseil des prud’hommes”) and the Versailles’ Court of Appeal,[9] considered that it was not possible to establish a clear and unequivocal link between the whistleblower’s alert and the dismissal of the employee, nor was it possible to establish retaliation measures taken in violation of her whistleblower status, and therefore referred the assessment of the dismissal reason to the trial judges.[10]
The whistleblower brought an appeal before the Cour de Cassation, in which she argued that such a decision violated articles R1455-6,[11] L1132-3-3,[12] and L1132-4[13] of the French Labor Code, in that the the juge des référés should have reviewed the just cause of the dismissal, and, more specifically, all the evidence provided by Thales to prove that its decision to dismiss was justified by objective factors unrelated to its alert.[14]
Indeed, her lawyers insisted on the fact that Article 12 of the Sapin 2 law gave an exceptional and derogatory jurisdiction to the juge des référés to rule on the substance of a dismissal following the reporting of an alert and not simply to determine whether the existence of a clear link between the dismissal and the alert constituted a manifestly unlawful disturbance.[15] Moreover, they emphasized that the said Article, referring directly to Article R1455-6 of the French Labor Code, could only imply that the juge des référés had the capacity to order the reinstatement of an employee.[16] They consider that this is a necessary protection for whistleblowers in view of the procedures on the substance’s length, which take place too late to effectively protect whistleblowers.[17]
Finally, the Cour de cassation followed the same approach, ruling that the juge des référés, even in the presence of a serious dispute, had to put an end to the manifestly unlawful disturbance resulting from the dismissal pronounced in retaliation for the whistleblower’s alert, by assessing whether the elements submitted were sufficient to presume the employee’s status as a whistleblower and, if so, by determining whether the employer could prove that the dismissal pronounced was justified by objective factors unrelated to the employee’s alert.[18]
The Cour de cassation confirmed the existence of a lighter burden of proof for whistleblowers in the event of disputes regarding retaliatory measures taken by their employer
The lighter burden of proof for whistleblowers in the event of disputes regarding retaliatory measures taken by their employer is based primarily on article L1132-3-3 of the French Labor Code. In its Sapin 2 law version, in force when the facts subject of the Cour de cassation’s decision occurred, this article provided that, in the event of a dispute regarding retaliatory measures taken against a whistleblower (i) the latter was only required to provide factual evidence allowing the presumption that he/she had reported or testified in good faith facts constituting an offence or a crime, or that he/she had reported an alert in compliance with Articles 6 to 8 of the Sapin 2 law, and (ii) the employer had to prove that its decision was justified by objective factors unrelated to the whistleblower’s alert.[19]
The Waserman Law amended this article, which now refers to Article 10-1 of the Sapin II law, which provides that, in the event of an appeal against a retaliatory measure, the whistleblower must provide factual evidence allowing the presumption that he/she reported or disclosed information in compliance with Articles 6 and 8, and that the employer, for its part, must now only prove that its decision is duly justified and no longer “justified by objective factors unrelated to the whistleblower’s alert.[20]
The decision of the Cour de cassation, although rendered under the former applicable Article L1132-3-3 of the French Labor Code, came as a timely reminder of the Cour‘s commitment to this principle. Indeed, the Cour de cassation considered that the juge des référés should not only note that the employee had provided evidence allowing the presumption that she had reported an alert in compliance with Articles 6 to 8 of the Sapin 2 law, but should also determine whether the employer had provided proof that its decision to dismiss was justified by objective factors unrelated to the whistleblower’s alert.[21]
This decision, which protects whistleblowers, gives reason to hope that future case law will interpret the new Article 10-1 of the Sapin 2 law restrictively, so as not to exempt employers from proving that their decision to dismiss a whistleblower was not a retaliation to the whistleblowing.
Related content
Press review
11 April 2025
Press review – Week of 7 April 2025
This week’s press review covers the European Parliament's vote to postpone the application of the CSRD to certain companies, as...
Press review
21 March 2025
Press review – Week of 17 March 2025
This week’s press review covers the lawsuit filed by two NGOs against Carrefour for failing to exercise due diligence in...
Press review
14 March 2025
Press review – Week of 10 March 2025
This week’s press review covers the conviction of the Swiss bank UBS for moral harassment against whistleblowers, as well as...
Press review
7 March 2025
Press review – Week of 3 March 2025
This week’s press review covers an independent commission of enquiry set up by Betharram religious congregation, the Court of justice...
Event
4 March 2025
Paris Arbitration Week 2025 – Red Flags in Arbitration: Trends and Tools for Addressing Corruption
Navacelle is hosting a panel regarding Compliance & Arbitration on 8 April 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week (PAW).
Press review
28 February 2025
Press review – Week of 24 February 2025
This week’s press review covers European news, including the adoption of the 16th package of sanctions against Russia, the suspension...
Press review
21 February 2025
Press review – Week of 17 February 2025
This week’s press review covers the decree signed by Donald Trump on corruption, the fine imposed by the Autorité des...
Press review
7 February 2025
Press review – Week of 3 February 2025
This week’s press review covers offences against environment, especially the trial against Nestlé company, an investigation in Guinea on pollution...
Event
27 January 2025
The internationalisation of whistleblowing: ensuring compliance within a global framework
A webinar organised by EQS on 28 January 2025 built for international compliance actors.
Press review
24 January 2025
Press review – Week of 20 January 2025
This week’s press review covers the CNIL's publication of its 2025-2028 strategic plan, the ACPR’s intensification of its fight against...
Press review
17 January 2025
Press review – Week of 13 January 2025
This week’s press review covers the investigation launched against the current French Minister of Transport for misappropriation of public funds,...
Event
10 January 2025
Are companies accountable in court? Between legality and activism
A panel organized on 10 January 2025, during the AIJA 2025 Francophone Conference in Geneva.
We use cookies to optimize our website and our services.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Préférences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.