Defending employers before the French labor courts in complex matters involving significant technical, financial, and reputational stakes.
Defending the company in high-stakes litigation
Not all labor court disputes are alike. Standard individual litigation follows well-established rules and is handled within a relatively predictable framework. Certain matters, by contrast, involve considerable legal, financial, and reputational stakes: collective litigation following a restructuring, co-employment claims, harassment or discrimination cases, large-scale reclassification claims, and litigation carrying a risk of class action.
The firm focuses on these complex matters, before the labor courts (conseils de prud'hommes), on appeal, and before the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), defending the company's interests with the technical expertise and rigor these situations demand.
Types of litigation handled
- Post-PSE litigation (challenges to the economic grounds, individual challenges, reclassification claims)
- Co-employment claims between parent companies and subsidiaries
- Psychological and sexual harassment and discrimination litigation
- Claims for the reclassification of fixed-term contracts, service agreements, internships, or umbrella company (portage) arrangements
- Litigation relating to management packages and share-related clauses
- Litigation relating to workplace accidents and occupational diseases
- Collective or serial actions involving dozens of claimants
- International and cross-border litigation
A structured defense from the very first step
Complex litigation is rarely won at the hearing. It is won in the preparation of the evidence, the structure of the written submissions, procedural strategy, and control of the timetable. The firm organizes each matter around a precise diagnosis, a clear line of defense, and anticipation of the opposing party's arguments.
The goal is to present the court with a clear, legally sound, and factually supported case that makes the company's position self-evident.
Collective litigation and post-PSE disputes
Litigation following a job protection plan (PSE) involves significant technical specificities: challenges to the economic grounds, challenges to the selection criteria, arguments relating to the administrative approval of the plan, and claims that the plan is null and void for insufficiency. The firm draws on its restructuring experience to build a coherent defense, based on the documentation prepared ahead of the operation.
In serial litigation (dozens of individual cases raising the same issue), case-handling logistics, consistency of arguments, and strategic oversight become as important as the legal substance.
Harassment, discrimination, and reputational risk
Harassment and discrimination cases carry a high legal risk (dismissal declared null and void, substantial back pay, publication of the decision) and a significant reputational risk. They call for particular care in gathering evidence, drafting written submissions, and coordinating with internal communications.
The firm handles these matters by aligning the litigation defense with HR and communications objectives, in order to limit collateral impact.
Co-employment and group structures
Although case law has narrowed the criteria, co-employment claims remain a significant risk for international groups and complex corporate structures. The defense requires a rigorous factual demonstration of each entity's operational and decision-making autonomy, supported by contractual, organizational, and accounting documentation.
All the way to the French Supreme Court
Some matters call for a strategy built all the way to an appeal before the Cour de cassation. The firm acts at every level of the court system, with a command of the technical requirements of Cour de cassation briefs and particular attention to the selection of grounds, so as to maximize the chances of the appeal being admitted.
A natural link with advisory work
The understanding of the company's operations gained through advisory work makes it possible to build far better-supported defenses. This is why the firm favors matters in which the advisory relationship and the litigation relationship reinforce each other, in a partnership approach that benefits the company over the long term.
