Is the intention to dismiss sufficient to terminate an employment contract? What the Court of Cassation says
Introduction
In a context where company managements are called upon to exercise increased vigilance in managing social relations, the rules governing the dismissal of an employee remain a particularly sensitive area. Internal communication, however smooth it may be, is not without legal consequences if poorly managed.
The ruling by the Court of Cassation on March 26, 2025, perfectly illustrates this issue. It provides important, even decisive, clarifications on the qualification of verbal dismissal and the legality of evidence from internal email exchanges. The case involved a general manager who, having become aware of messages between the president and the HR manager discussing his replacement, claimed to have been informally dismissed even before the official notification.
Can the intention to dismiss, revealed in internal messages, be considered a breach of contract? And to what extent can these exchanges be produced before the judge as evidence? These are questions that employers, managers, and HR directors ask themselves in order to secure their HR policy. This article offers a clear and strategic reading.
The legal limits of intention: a preparatory act does not constitute formal dismissal
A message does not make a dismissal, even if it is explicit. This is essentially what the Court of Cassation reminded in this case. An employer, considering a possible replacement or restructuring, can legitimately exchange with colleagues to anticipate decisions. As long as this intention is not directly communicated to the employee concerned, or made public within the company, it remains legally a preparatory act.
Article L. 1232-6 of the Labor Code is unambiguous: a dismissal must be formalized by a written letter, notified to the employee. Any other mode of termination, even in the presence of elements suggesting an intention to dismiss, can lead to litigation for procedural defect. In this case, the email exchanges did mention the replacement of the general manager by another person but had not been disseminated — neither to the person concerned nor to other employees publicly or implicitly.
The employer therefore retains, in this gray area, the possibility of retracting an intention, as long as it has not materialized by an external sign of termination — verbal, written, or behavioral. A valuable strategic tool for managers, but also a lever to be handled with rigor.
Email evidence: admissible but not decisive
Another central issue of this decision was the admissibility of emails as evidence. In this case, the messages between the president and the HR manager were retrieved by the employee via professional messaging tools to which he had access in his management functions. The employer contested their use, arguing an invasion of privacy and an unfair process.
The Court of Cassation nevertheless validated the production of these emails, highlighting three key elements:
- It was not a hacking;
- Access to the messages was possible without subterfuge;
- The content of the messages was strictly professional.
This insight is fundamental for companies. It reminds that any message exchanged via professional tools, even if not sent to the employee concerned, can be admissible before the judge, provided the rules of fairness and respect for privacy are observed.
However, caution: this does not mean that the production of such messages is sufficient to win the case on the merits. In this case, the evidence was deemed lawful, but the Court of Cassation ruled that it did not demonstrate an irrevocable decision to dismiss the employee.
Essential distinction: preparing a dismissal is not dismissing
What emerges very clearly from the ruling of March 26, 2025, is the boundary between internal strategic reflection and decisive legal act. This boundary is based on two fundamental criteria: the content of the exchange and its recipient.
Even in the presence of a prepared job offer for a potential replacement, if the current employee has not been explicitly informed at the employer's initiative, there can be no verbal dismissal. The termination of the contract must result from a voluntary, unequivocal act, addressed to the employee or disseminated within the company in such a way as to make his situation obvious. A telling example: the repeated use of acts such as the early delivery of end-of-contract certificates or the prohibition of access to the office have been deemed sufficient to establish a verbal dismissal in other cases.
For managers and HR directors, this jurisprudence offers a practical guide: as long as no message, gesture, or formal act is addressed to the targeted employee or made public, internal discussions can — legally — be kept within the realm of preparations. However, once this line is crossed, the risk of litigation rises significantly.
Conclusion
The ruling of March 26, 2025, clarifies an area of uncertainty that concerned many managers: any preparatory act for a dismissal does not, in itself, constitute an effective breach of the employment contract. It therefore becomes crucial for companies to structure their exchanges, frame internal strategic discussions, and identify communication thresholds not to be crossed without having engaged the required formality.
It also reminds that caution, transparency, and adherence to procedures are essential protections against the risk of social litigation, which can impact financially or in terms of image.
Call to Action (CTA)
Are you wondering about securing your internal processes in terms of restructuring, talent management, or contract termination? For personalized advice and a strategy tailored to your situation, contact PY Partners. Our expert labor law lawyers support companies and managers with responsiveness, rigor, and pragmatism.