In this case, an employer dismissed an employee for gross misconduct after the announcement of her pregnancy. The employee works in the chemical sector. She had announced her pregnancy to her employer almost 5 months after learning of it. The employer justifies her dismissal by the fact that she is exposed to chemicals that could harm her physical or mental health and that of her fetus. It thus states that, in such circumstances, retaining the employee would incur civil and criminal liability.

The employee decides to apply to the Labor Court for the annulment of her dismissal, which she considers to be based on her pregnancy. The board rescinds his dismissal.

The employer then goes to the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision. The Court of Appeal stated that by not revealing her pregnancy to her employer, the employee voluntarily exposed herself to a risk. She was forced to handle products contraindicated for her pregnancy, which did not allow her to fully fulfill the requirements of her employment contract. According to the Court of Appeal, those facts were, in fact, such as to give rise to the civil and criminal liability of her employer because the lack of knowledge of the pregnancy prevents the employer from taking the appropriate measures. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the dismissal was therefore not based on her pregnancy but on the fact that she had hidden that pregnancy from her employer.

The employee takes the case to the Court of Cassation. It contradicts the Court of Appeal. She recalled that a woman did not have to disclose her pregnancy to her employer and that any dismissal for that reason was considered null and void. Such an act would undermine the principle of equal rights between men and women.

For the Court, the the late notification of the employer of her pregnancy is not considered a serious fault even in the case where the employee is exposed to a risk to her health. It states in this case that the dismissal is void.