A former employee and an American company in France are torn over the language of an employment contract

Moliere’s pen and Shakespeare’s verb. This high-flying fight is not literary, but legal. A French employee working in English attacks his former English-speaking company. As the Court of Appeal rejected his claim, he appealed on several grounds of law. One of them, relating to the language used in contracts, rightly drew the attention of the High Court, whose decision was delivered on Wednesday, June 7.

While he was fully bilingual and worked exclusively in English, this sales executive denied that his objectives and terms of pay were dictated by a contract written in English. Since the language of the proceedings was English and the company was the French branch of an American multinational, it seemed entirely natural that the contract should be written in the language of Shakespeare. However, the Court of Cassation held that the medical institution had made a mistake and recalled it “Any document containing provisions requiring knowledge of the obligations of the employee or the performance of his duties shall be written in French”.

Hence it is futile to prove that the employee had proper knowledge of English and therefore signed knowingly. Although the commercial executive asked for more than he gave. He could ignore the details of the targeting document, which allowed him to calculate his commissions, because it was written in English. So the judges said he should not understand it.

Read morePixit, a platform for digitizing and signing employment contracts remotely

Therefore, a company has decided to work in a foreign language – it is absolutely right, although it is obliged to write some documents in French. Based on this judgment of the Court of Cassation Article L. 1321-6 of the Labor Code. He adds that the obligation to use French also applies to documents setting out the objectives of variable remuneration. However, this obligation to use the French language in certain documents does not apply to persons acquired or residing abroad. The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff, holding that the language of the contract was actually used by the corporation. A decision which would have been legal had it found that the contract was obtained from abroad. Otherwise, the High Court set aside the judgment. 3000 to pay the delinquent company to its ex-employee.