France/ Business: Can You Avoid Paying Overtime Simply by Prohibiting It? What This Means for Employers
Practical guidance for business leaders managing employees in France
Many employers believe that a clear policy prohibiting overtime without prior approval is sufficient to protect them against overtime claims. A recent decision of the French Supreme Court reminds us that, under French employment law, the analysis does not stop there.
On 20 May 2026, the Cour de cassation reaffirmed that overtime may still be payable if the additional hours were necessary for the employee to perform the work entrusted to them—even where the employer had expressly instructed the employee not to work overtime.
For employers, this decision is less about overtime approval procedures than about how work is actually organized. Written policies remain important, but they cannot compensate for workloads or operational expectations that make overtime unavoidable.
- CEOs and Managing Directors
- HR Directors
- CFOs
- Payroll Managers
- In-house Counsel
- International companies with employees in France
The Business Question
Imagine that your company has recently acquired a French subsidiary.
As part of your integration process, you implement a straightforward rule:
“Overtime is prohibited unless expressly approved by management.”
Managers are reminded regularly not to authorize additional hours. Employees receive the policy in writing. Payroll is instructed not to pay unauthorized overtime.
Several months later, an employee brings a claim before the French labor courts seeking payment for hundreds of hours of overtime.
Your instinctive reaction may be:
“We never approved those hours. Why should we pay them?”
According to the French Supreme Court, that question may not be the right one.
The more important question is whether the employee could reasonably perform the work assigned without working those additional hours.
What Happened?
The case involved a cook employed by API Restauration.
After resigning, the employee brought several claims before the labor courts, including claims for unpaid overtime, compensatory rest, damages for exceeding statutory working time limits and compensation arising from the termination of his employment.
The employer argued that it had instructed the employee, on 21 April 2021, not to perform any further overtime.
The Court of Appeal accepted that reasoning and limited the employee’s recovery for overtime to the period preceding that instruction.
The employee appealed to the Cour de cassation.
The Supreme Court partially overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision.
The Court recalled an important principle under Article L.3121-28 of the French Labor Code:
An employee may be entitled to payment for overtime not only where the employer expressly—or even implicitly—authorized it, but also where the additional hours were necessary to complete the work assigned by the employer.
The Court criticized the Court of Appeal for stopping its analysis after finding that the employer had prohibited overtime.
Instead, it should also have examined whether the employee nevertheless had to perform those additional hours to complete the tasks entrusted to him.
Because that question had not been addressed, the Court concluded that the decision lacked a sufficient legal basis and partially quashed it.
Why This Matters for Employers
This decision is not an invitation for employees to ignore company policies.
Nor does it mean that employers lose control over overtime management.
Instead, it reminds employers that French courts examine workplace reality as well as written policies.
A prohibition of overtime is an important management tool.
However, if the organization of work effectively requires employees to remain at work beyond their contractual hours, that policy alone may not prevent an overtime claim.
From a business perspective, employers should therefore consider whether operational expectations align with contractual working time.
For example:
- Are employees expected to achieve objectives that cannot realistically be completed during normal working hours?
- Are managers rewarding results while overlooking how many hours were required to achieve them?
- Does the organization routinely rely on employees responding to emails or completing work outside scheduled hours?
- Are staffing levels sufficient to meet operational demands without recurring overtime?
If the answer to any of these questions raises concern, reviewing the overtime policy alone may not be enough.
The underlying organization of work may also need attention.
A Second Important Lesson: Working Time Compliance
The decision also addresses another issue that deserves employers’ attention.
French law limits both the maximum daily working time and the maximum weekly working time.
The Court confirmed that the employer bears the burden of proving compliance with those statutory limits.
This distinction is significant.
In overtime disputes, both employer and employee generally contribute evidence regarding hours worked.
However, when the issue concerns compliance with statutory working time limits, the employer must be able to demonstrate that those limits were respected.
For employers, this reinforces the importance of maintaining reliable and contemporaneous working time records.
What Employers Should Review Now
This decision provides an opportunity for employers to review not only their policies but also their operational practices.
In particular, organizations employing staff in France may wish to consider whether:
-
Workloads are realistic
Can employees reasonably perform the work assigned during their contractual working hours?
-
Managers understand the legal risks
Do supervisors appreciate that repeatedly assigning unrealistic workloads may create overtime liability, even where overtime has been formally prohibited?
-
Working time is accurately recorded
Are actual hours worked monitored and retained in a reliable manner?
-
Approval procedures reflect reality
Is overtime genuinely managed through an approval process, or has informal practice drifted away from written policy?
-
Staffing matches operational requirements
If overtime has become routine, is it signaling an underlying resourcing issue rather than an employee conduct issue?
Looking Beyond This Decision
Although this case concerns overtime, it illustrates a broader feature of French employment law.
French courts frequently examine how work is organized in practice, rather than relying solely on contractual wording or internal policies.
For international employers, this can sometimes be surprising.
In many jurisdictions, a written policy prohibiting overtime may carry significant weight.
In France, however, courts are also likely to ask whether the employer’s operational decisions made compliance with that policy realistically possible.
This broader perspective should encourage employers to align day-to-day management practices with the policies they expect employees to follow.
The decision offers several practical lessons for employers operating in France:
- A written prohibition on overtime does not automatically prevent an employee from claiming overtime pay.
- Overtime may still be payable where it was necessary to perform the work assigned by the employer.
- French courts will consider how work was organized in practice—not only what internal policies required.
- Employers bear the burden of demonstrating compliance with statutory daily and weekly working time limits.
- Effective overtime management depends as much on realistic workloads and sound managerial practices as on well-drafted internal rules.
Final Thoughts
The most effective overtime policy is not simply one that prohibits additional hours.
It is one that is supported by realistic workloads, appropriate staffing, trained managers and reliable working time records.
The recent decision of the Cour de cassation serves as a timely reminder that, under French employment law, compliance is measured not only by what employers say, but also by how work is organized in practice.
For businesses employing staff in France, taking the time to review those practices today may help avoid costly disputes tomorrow.
Employers use overtime to address temporary increases in workload. Between January 1 and July 31, 2026, U.S. manufacturing employees worked an average of 3 hours of overtime per week. In the first quarter of 2026, employees in France worked an average of 16.3 overtime hours per employee, excluding employees working under a forfait-jours arrangement. In 2025, private-sector employees worked an average of 103 overtime hours per employee. That same year, 7 out of 10 blue-collar workers worked at least one overtime hour.
Overtime refers to hours worked at the employer’s request, or with the employer’s express or implied consent, beyond the statutory working time or the working time considered equivalent in certain occupations.
Overtime may also benefit from favorable tax and social-security treatment. In the United States, for example, certain overtime compensation has been eligible for a federal income tax deduction, subject to specific conditions, since 2025.
Source
Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale, 20 May 2026, No. 25-10.943 (partial cassation).
Business decisions rarely fit neatly into accounting, tax, employment law or corporate governance. Yet business leaders are expected to make decisions that depend on all of them.
That is where Aimlon CPA P.C. makes a difference.
We help entrepreneurs, executives and multinational businesses operating between France and the United States navigate situations where financial, tax, legal and operational issues intersect. Rather than viewing these disciplines in isolation, we help our clients understand how they influence one another—because the best decisions are made when the whole picture is clear.
Our role extends beyond compliance. We translate complex regulations, court decisions and cross-border rules into practical business insights that leaders can act on with confidence.
Whether reviewing the implications of a French Supreme Court decision, expanding into a new market, restructuring a business or managing cross-border tax obligations, our objective remains the same:
to transform complexity into clarity, so leaders can make better decisions with confidence.
Because our clients are not looking for more information.
They are looking for understanding.
