Under French law, wilful misconduct (faute lourde) is the most severe form of dismissal. Beyond gross misconduct (faute grave), it requires proof of the employee’s intent to harm the company. That intent does not flow automatically from the commission of an act prejudicial to the business; it must be specifically established. Once characterised, wilful misconduct deprives the employee of severance pay and notice pay (although accrued holiday pay remains due).
The Court of Cassation has confirmed that intent to harm may be inferred from a convergent pattern of facts, without any need to identify a single act of particular gravity.
In this case, a marketing and development director had been dismissed for wilful misconduct. The Court of Appeal found that he had engaged in constant disparagement of the company’s chairperson, made insulting and defamatory remarks about her, and used various deceitful manoeuvres to discredit her, both internally and with the principal shareholder. He had also reported alarming statements to colleagues, attributing the company’s situation to mismanagement and suggesting possible misappropriation of funds.
The Court of Cassation held that, taken together, these elements established the employee’s intent to harm and met the threshold for wilful misconduct.
The practical lesson is that intent to harm can be deduced from a convergent pattern of conduct rather than a single dramatic act.
