According to the Paris Court of Appeal, this refusal constituted a breach of his duty of loyalty. Serious misconduct can justify termination.
If you think sick leave means radio silence with your boss, this story is for you. A sick leave does not put an end to all an employee’s obligations, and one employee learned this the hard way. Yet the story between the employee and the company had all the makings of a fairy tale. He was hired on July 15, 2018—the day the French national soccer team won its second star—as technical director at So Shape.
This company, which specializes in weight loss through slimming programs, paid the employee 13,820 euros per month. The working relationship between the two parties started off well. Several meetings took place with the company’s CEO in a very cordial atmosphere. But after a few months, the employee fell ill in February 2019. On the 18th of that month, he was placed on sick leave for three weeks, with a scheduled return to work on March 12, 2019.
On February 25, 2019, the employee sent a letter to the company’s president. In this letter, he described his difficulties at work, as well as criticisms of his manager: the CEO. He describes a stressful work environment caused in particular by the CEO’s condescending attitude and incessant messages. He mentions that his every move is being monitored, as well as unjustified criticism. To make matters worse, the CEO continues to contact him despite his sick leave. On March 1er March, the employee’s attorney in turn informs the company of his client’s various issues.
At the same time, So Shape experiences a major IT outage that prevents the company from operating. On March 6, 2019, it sends a letter to the employee on sick leave. It demands the transfer of several IT access credentials as well as a large file of documentation. Citing a crisis situation, So Shape explains to the employee that it has no choice but to make this request. He is the only one who possesses these access codes.
In a major setback for the company, the employee refuses to provide the access codes, claiming that doing so would represent “several months of work.” The situation deteriorates further. The service provider mentioned by So Shape to repair the site informs the company that it cannot do anything without the codes, and the employee’s leave is extended. The company makes a second request on March 13 to obtain the codes. It is refused again.
Upon his return to the office on March 18, the employee again refuses to give the codes to the company. He is suspended and receives a summons to a pre-dismissal interview. Believing himself to be a victim of workplace bullying, he does not attend the interview. The company terminates him for serious misconduct on April 5, citing a breach of the duty of loyalty and insubordination.
The case went to court. So Shape sued the employee in labor court to obtain the access codes. The employee finally returned them on May 6, 2019, at 12:36 p.m., just minutes before the hearing scheduled for 1:00 p.m. One legal dispute ended, but another began. The employee challenges his dismissal, citing, in particular, the harassment he endured. His claims are rejected by the Labor Court on February 25, 2022, and then by the Paris Court of Appeal on October 16, 2025.
“The court considers that the request to provide this access fell within the scope of the minimum cooperation expected under the duty of loyalty, and that the repeated refusal to provide it, while the company was at a standstill, constituted, under the circumstances of this case, serious misconduct justifying dismissal. In other words, the employer cannot require the employee to work during their sick leave, but may expect them not to hinder the minimum continuity of operations when a simple transfer of information is involved,” explains Kenny Lassus, a labor law attorney.
For the expert, the nature of the request determines the line between a request for information and a task incompatible with sick leave. “Asking the employee to analyze a breakdown, diagnose an incident, or perform technical work would constitute actual work. On the other hand, requesting the one-time provision of login credentials, access, or documents necessary to allow a third party to intervene constitutes a request for information compatible with the duty of loyalty.”
While the attorney acknowledges that the employee may, in principle, refuse to comply based on their health condition, he cautions employees. “The argument regarding health status may be admissible, but it must be substantiated; and the simpler, briefer, and more limited to existing information the employer’s request is, the more difficult it will be to justify a refusal solely on the grounds of sick leave.”
