Mr Z, hired as a road driver, is the victim of a. Following several medical examinations, the occupational physician authorizes a resumption under certain conditions: prohibition to carry a load greater than 10 kilos and to pull or push a load, except with the help of an electric trolley.

The employer then assigns Mr. Z to another site. However, a few months later, Mr Z was again placed on sick leave.

At the same time, he applied to the labor court for judicial termination of his employment contract, considering that his employer had not complied with his security obligation. According to Mr Z, it was for his employer to verify whether the places of delivery of the customers with whom he had to make his rounds, in this case supermarkets, had the equipment recommended by occupational medicine. However, most of the shops concerned did not have them.

After a medical examination, the occupational physician declared Mr Z unfit for his post. He was then dismissed for incapacity.

Mr Z’s claims, relating to the judicial termination of his employment contract, on the one hand, and to the payment by his employer of damages for dismissal without real and serious cause, and breach of the obligation of security, on the other, are rejected by the Court of Appeal. The Commission considers that the breaches found occurred in third businesses, customers of the employer, and that the latter cannot be aware of them if the employee concerned does not alert it.

Mr. Z then decides to go to the Court of Cassation.

As part of its security obligation towards its employees, does the employer have to check beforehand that the premises of the customers where his employee works have the equipment recommended by occupational medicine?

Service-public.fr replies:

In its decision of June 11, 2025, the Court of Cassation overturned and annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal.

It recalls the provisions of the Labor Code according to which the occupational physician may propose individual measures for the adjustment, adaptation or transformation of the work station if they are justified by considerations relating to the age or physical and mental health of the worker.

The employer, bound to a security obligation, must therefore ensure the effectiveness of the recommended measures.

The Court finds that the employer, although informed of the occupational physician’s recommendation concerning the use of an electric trolley, had not checked whether Mr Z’s actual working conditions on his clients’ sites made it possible to comply with that recommendation. It thus considers that the employer has failed to fulfill its security obligation.

The employer must therefore check that the preventive measures recommended by occupational medicine are followed even when his employee intervenes on the site of a client business.