Dismissal for Gross Misconduct in France: Licenciement Pour Faute Grave

A dismissal for gross misconduct, known in French as a licenciement pour faute grave, is a disciplinary dismissal triggered by conduct serious enough to make the employee's continued presence in the company impossible, even during a notice period. French law places this alongside two other degrees of fault, each carrying different financial consequences, and surrounds the disciplinary process with strict procedural deadlines. This overview covers the framework in force as of July 2026.

Information last verified on 19 July 2026. This article presents general legal information, not legal advice.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers disciplinary dismissal under French national labor law (the Code du travail) as it applies in mainland France. It does not address other countries' rules or the adapted labor codes used in some French overseas collectivities.

Faute Simple, Faute Grave, and Faute Lourde: The Three Degrees of Fault

French law distinguishes three degrees of employee fault that can justify a disciplinary dismissal, and each carries a different set of financial consequences.

Faute simple is ordinary misconduct serious enough to justify dismissal but not serious enough to require the employee's immediate removal. An employee dismissed for faute simple generally works their notice period (or is paid in lieu of it), receives the statutory dismissal indemnity, and receives the indemnity for unused paid leave.

Faute grave is misconduct serious enough that keeping the employee in the company, even during a notice period, is not possible. Faute lourde is the most severe category: misconduct committed with intention de nuire, an intent to harm the employer, such as sabotage or deliberate misuse of company resources for the purpose of causing damage. Faute lourde requires everything faute grave requires, plus that additional intent element.

What Faute Grave Removes, and What It Leaves in Place

A dismissal for faute grave changes the financial consequences of the dismissal in two specific ways, and leaves a third consequence untouched. The employee does not perform a notice period and does not receive notice pay. The employee does not receive the statutory indemnité de licenciement.

What faute grave does not remove is the indemnité compensatrice de congés payés, the indemnity for accrued but unused paid leave. That amount remains due regardless of the fault classification. A common misunderstanding is treating faute grave as if it wipes out every payment owed to the employee. It does not: the paid-leave indemnity survives.

Faute Lourde: Intent to Harm, and Why Paid Leave Survived After 2016

Faute lourde carries the same removal of notice pay and dismissal indemnity as faute grave, and for a long time it also removed the paid-leave indemnity, the one item faute grave left in place. That is no longer the case.

On 2 March 2016, the Conseil constitutionnel ruled, in decision n. 2015-523 QPC, on a question referred to it concerning article L3141-26 of the Code du travail. The provision conditioned the paid-leave indemnity on the contract not having ended because of the employee's faute lourde. The Conseil constitutionnel declared that condition unconstitutional, holding that it violated the principle of equality before the law, and struck the relevant words from the article. Since that decision took effect on 4 March 2016, faute lourde no longer forfeits the indemnité compensatrice de congés payés. On this specific point, faute grave and faute lourde now produce the same result: the paid-leave indemnity is due either way. What still separates faute lourde from faute grave is the intention de nuire requirement, and the fact that faute lourde alone can expose the employee to a separate damages claim from the employer for losses the intentional misconduct caused.

Mise à Pied Conservatoire (Protective Suspension)

When an employer suspects misconduct serious enough to justify immediate removal from the workplace while the disciplinary procedure runs its course, it can place the employee on mise à pied conservatoire, a protective suspension. This is not itself a punishment; it is a precautionary measure meant to remove the employee from the workplace while the facts are investigated and the procedure unfolds.

The law does not set a fixed maximum duration for a mise à pied conservatoire. What it requires is that the measure be followed swiftly by the disciplinary procedure. A protective suspension left open for an extended period without the employer moving forward with the convocation and the rest of the procedure risks being reclassified by a court as a disguised disciplinary sanction in its own right, with its own separate procedural requirements. A mise à pied conservatoire should not be confused with a mise à pied disciplinaire, which is a sanction on its own with its own delay rules.

The Disciplinary Procedure Step by Step

A dismissal for gross misconduct follows the general disciplinary procedure set out in the Code du travail, with fixed minimum and maximum delays at each stage.

The employer first sends or hand-delivers a convocation à l'entretien préalable, a letter naming the object of the upcoming meeting. The entretien préalable, the preliminary meeting, cannot be held less than 5 working days after the registered letter is presented or the convocation letter is handed to the employee. This gives the employee time to prepare and, where they choose, to be assisted at the meeting.

After the meeting, the employer cannot notify the sanction, meaning the dismissal itself, less than 2 working days after the day set for the meeting, nor more than 1 month after that day. Notification outside that window on either end is a procedural defect.

The 2-Month Time Limit to Start Disciplinary Proceedings

Article L1332-4 sets a separate, earlier deadline that governs when the disciplinary process can begin at all. No fact of misconduct, taken alone, can give rise to the start of disciplinary proceedings more than 2 months after the day the employer became aware of it, unless the same fact also gave rise to criminal proceedings within that same period.

This 2-month clock runs from the employer's knowledge of the facts, not from when the misconduct actually occurred. Misconduct that stayed hidden from the employer for a long period can still support timely disciplinary action once discovered, because the clock only starts running once the employer, meaning whoever holds knowledge relevant to the case within the company, actually learns of it. In practice, sending the convocation à l'entretien préalable is what starts the disciplinary proceedings for purposes of this deadline, so that step must happen within the 2 months.

Contesting a Dismissal for Gross Misconduct: 12 Months and the Burden of Proof

Article L1471-1 gives an employee 12 months from notification of the dismissal to bring a claim over the ending of the employment contract before the conseil de prud'hommes, the French labor court. This 12-month prescription period applies to disputes over dismissal generally, including dismissals for faute grave or faute lourde.

The point most valuable to a reader facing a faute grave dismissal is who has to prove what. The burden of proving that the employee's conduct actually amounts to faute grave rests on the employer. It is the employer who must establish, before the conseil de prud'hommes, both that the misconduct occurred and that it was serious enough to make continued employment, even during a notice period, impossible. This allocation of the burden of proof is settled through the case law of the Cour de cassation rather than stated in a single article the way the 12-month prescription period is, but it is a consistent feature of how these cases are decided.

Related Topics

Dismissal for gross misconduct is one of several ways a French employment contract can end, and each route carries its own financial consequences. Dismissal for economic reasons, unrelated to the employee's conduct, follows an entirely different framework, covered on the economic dismissal page. An employer and employee can also agree to end a contract by mutual consent through a mutual agreement termination, which is not a dismissal at all. However a contract ends, the employee's final pay is settled through a final pay settlement, and general severance rules are covered on the severance pay page. For the full set of France employment law topics, see the France hub.

The questions below cover the points readers ask most often about a faute grave dismissal, at a general informational level.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. French employment law, including the classifications, deadlines, and consequences described above, can change through new legislation or court decisions, and specific collective bargaining agreements may add procedural requirements beyond the statutory minimum. Anyone facing a dismissal for gross misconduct, or considering carrying one out, should consult a qualified French employment lawyer or the conseil de prud'hommes for guidance on their specific situation.