One Routine, One Omission
In 1998, a young pharmacy assistant started work at a family-owned pharmacy in southern France, as reported by emploi.lefigaro.fr. She donned the white coat, dispensed medication, learned the procedures, and gradually won the trust of her bosses. Busy days, a calm atmosphere—on the surface, everything ran like clockwork. But somewhere in the records, a shadow remained.
Years passed, businesses changed hands, and the employment contract moved from one company to another without interruption, notably in 2015 when new owners arrived. Each takeover reestablished business as usual, with nobody really combing through the complete personnel history. Memory fades over time and, as long as the paperwork seems in order, nobody worries.
Yet lurking beneath this routine lay a weak spot—no one clarified it outright. This was a tightly regulated profession, its requirements well known. And yet, nowhere in the employee’s accessible file was there any formal proof of her qualification. The system of checks began to unravel—each person assumed someone else had already done the job.
When the Audit Comes Knocking
At the end of 2017, an inspector from the regional health agency (ARS) requested the diplomas of the whole team. The pharmacy couldn’t produce the paperwork for the assistant. The owners first asked her for a copy verbally, then put their requests in writing (letters dated December 22, 2017 and January 17, 2018). She had been on sick leave since December 11, 2017.
With no proof forthcoming, management suspended her. In February 2018, she was formally dismissed for gross misconduct—the central charge: missing diploma. The dismissal letter mentioned dishonesty, lack of good faith, and breach of professional regulations. It even referenced the risk of criminal penalties.
The employee immediately fought back, insisting she had hidden nothing. She recalled working under conditional approval and maintained prior owners were aware of her situation. She claimed the new management never checked her credentials when they took over. The issue now shifted squarely to responsibility and internal controls.
Judges, Appeals, and… Plot Twist!
In 2021, the French labor court (conseil de prud’hommes) ruled the dismissal was not based on a valid or serious cause. The employer was ordered to pay over €34,800 in compensation (that’s roughly $38,000 at current conversion rates). The weight of years, belated audits, and incomplete files tipped the balance: who was actually responsible for checking?
Fast forward to 2023, and the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. They found that failing to alert the employer about any professional restraints—including a missing diploma—counted as a breach of loyalty. The employee’s appeal was dismissed and she was ordered to pay court costs. The message: employees must notify their employer of constraints, diploma or not.
But the story wasn’t over. She appealed. In 2025, the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) reversed the appellate court’s ruling and set the record straight: an employer cannot use their own negligence as grounds for firing someone for gross misconduct. The employer now had to pay €3,000 ($3,300) in legal fees, and the case was sent back for another hearing.
Gross misconduct requires wrongdoing that simply can’t be tolerated. The top court pointed out: the employer is responsible for verifying both declared and actual qualifications. Negligence on the employer’s part cannot be repurposed as a decisive grievance. The initial checks, the follow-up, the documented trail—they matter just as much as years on the job.
Lessons in Vigilance: Practical Takeaways
According to attorney Henri Guyot (Aerige law firm), vigilance lies first and foremost with the employer. When a pharmacy changes hands, the chain of verification is often muddled. Everyone assumes the previous owner did their homework. But managing employee records remains an obligation—especially when there are any doubts about credentials.
This approach doesn’t undermine the loyalty expected from staff; it simply clarifies where the burden of proof and follow-up lies. In regulated professions, paperwork must be checked, archived, and updated regularly. Otherwise, irregularities become systemic, and allegations of gross misconduct are up for legitimate debate.
Here are the key takeaways:
- First reflex: Documentation. Keep a central register for diplomas, approvals, updates, and responses to audits, in proper format. Each document should be dated, signed, and its source recorded. This basic rigor cuts down on disputes and protects the team during inspections.
- Second safeguard: Internal audits after a business is acquired. Go through every staff file, follow up in writing, file documents without delay. The new manager should organize a documentary orientation session, using standard templates and digital files. This approach helps avoid blind spots—like an overlooked missing diploma.
- Third reflex: Foster a culture of shared proof. Each employee should have access to clear instructions and up-to-date templates, making quick and accurate responses possible. The manager should keep a log of requests and replies—without being heavy-handed. Such transparency builds trust and reduces misunderstandings that might otherwise end up in court.
The Supreme Court’s decision in 2025 doesn’t close the book entirely; the case heads back to the Court of Appeal for further examination. But it does set a compass: verify, document, and own your checks. In pharmacies, patient safety rests on keeping documents up-to-date. When a missing diploma comes to light, negligence stops being a viable defense strategy. The outcome now rests on how well all the facts will be weighed.
