Nearly 10 million French suffer from long-term conditions (ALD).
ALD is defined as diseases that require treatment or care for more than six consecutive months. There are two types of ALD: exonerating, 100% supported, and non-exonerating.
The exonerating ALDs group together 30 groups of various pathologies – hence the name of ALD30 -, the most frequent being malignant tumors, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and psychiatric disorders. It can also be heart failure, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, disabling stroke, severe epilepsy, or HIV-type immune deficiency.
ALDs are not considered as occupational diseases or occupational accidents. However, the labor code provides a number of adjustments for employees who suffer from these conditions .
Thus, Article L1226-5 of the Labor Code specifies that any employee suffering from such a disease shall benefit from absence authorizations to follow the medical treatment necessitated by his state of health.
Article L6315-1 also provides that a professional interview must be systematically offered to the employee who resumes his activity after a long sick leave following an ALD.
Most often, ALD causes disability, but it is not automatic. And it must be remembered that disability does not entail the automatic termination of the employment contract.
Thus, despite permanent partial disability (PPI) caused by a long-term illness, the employee can continue to work.
The termination of the employment contract can only intervene in two hypotheses:
– when the long-term illness provokes an unfitness to work, ascertained by the occupational doctor and no reclassification of the employee is possible;
– when the absence of the employee, repeated or prolonged, disturbing the activity of the company and requiring its permanent replacement.
If the employee is dismissed while he is not in one of these assumptions, his dismissal is considered discriminatory because only motivated by his state of health.
Nothing obliges them.
Although the employee has an obligation of loyalty towards his employer, there is nothing to compel him to disclose information relating to his private life.
For example, it has been held that an employee who is recognized as a disabled worker by COTOREP does not commit any fault by not informing the employer of his disability, since information on his state of health can only be given to the doctor of the employer. work, which is itself subject to medical confidentiality with regard to the employer ( Cass, 18 September 2013 n ° 12-1715 9).
This is to protect the right to privacy.
It has thus been recalled in a ministerial reply that the decision to inform the employer or the occupational physician of his status as a disabled worker is the result of a personal and voluntary approach by the person concerned. According to Article 9 of the Civil Code, everyone has the right to the protection of their private life ( Min.Representative No. 11415, JO Senate of 17/12/2009 ).