{"id":28071,"date":"2025-12-05T13:08:20","date_gmt":"2025-12-05T12:08:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/?p=28071"},"modified":"2025-12-05T13:08:22","modified_gmt":"2025-12-05T12:08:22","slug":"est-il-possible-de-refuser-le-teletravail-medical-si-le-salarie-ne-permet-a-son-employeur-dacceder-a-son-domicile","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/est-il-possible-de-refuser-le-teletravail-medical-si-le-salarie-ne-permet-a-son-employeur-dacceder-a-son-domicile\/","title":{"rendered":"Est il possible de refuser le t\u00e9l\u00e9travail \u00ab m\u00e9dical \u00bb si le salari\u00e9 ne permet \u00e0 son employeur d\u2019acc\u00e9der \u00e0 son domicile ?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Telle est la question pos\u00e9e \u00e0 la Cour de cassation ayant donn\u00e9 lieu \u00e0 son arr\u00eat du 13 novembre 2025 (n\u00b024-14.322).<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>Dans cette esp\u00e8ce, le m\u00e9decin du travail a pr\u00e9conis\u00e9 un am\u00e9nagement du poste d\u2019un salari\u00e9 avec deux jours de t\u00e9l\u00e9travail par semaine.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>L\u2019employeur a refus\u00e9 cet am\u00e9nagement, en justifiant son refus par le fait que le salari\u00e9 ne l\u2019avait pas laiss\u00e9 acc\u00e9der \u00e0 son domicile. L\u2019opposition du salari\u00e9 ne lui permettait pas de s\u2019assurer que le domicile du salari\u00e9 \u00e9tait conforme aux exigences d\u2019une activit\u00e9 professionnelle en t\u00e9l\u00e9travail. L\u2019employeur faisait donc \u00e9tat de son obligation de pr\u00e9server la sant\u00e9 et la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 du salari\u00e9.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>Le salari\u00e9 a saisi le Conseil de prud\u2019hommes pour manquement de l\u2019employeur \u00e0 son obligation de s\u00e9curit\u00e9, en raison du non-respect de cette pr\u00e9conisation.<\/p>\n<p>La Cour d\u2019appel a d\u00e9bout\u00e9 le salari\u00e9. Elle a consid\u00e9r\u00e9\u00a0que le refus du salari\u00e9 de faire visiter son domicile n\u2019avait pas permis \u00e0 l\u2019employeur de mettre en place le t\u00e9l\u00e9travail.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>Dans son arr\u00eat du 13 novembre 2025 (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.courdecassation.fr\/decision\/6915978a5cc9fa7cae5abe1d\" target=\"_blank\">https:\/\/www.courdecassation.fr\/decision\/6915978a5cc9fa7cae5abe1d<\/a>), la Cour de cassation censure la d\u00e9cision des juges du fond, et :<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Rappelle que le domicile rel\u00e8ve de la vie priv\u00e9e, de sorte que le salari\u00e9 peut refuser l\u2019acc\u00e8s de son domicile \u00e0 son employeur,<\/li>\n<li>Retient que l\u2019employeur ne peut pas conditionner le refus d\u2019application d\u2019une pr\u00e9conisation du m\u00e9decin du travail en se fondant sur le seul refus du salari\u00e9.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><em>Quelles actions aurait d\u00fb prendre l\u2019employeur\u00a0?<\/em><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>L\u2019employeur aurait d\u00fb contester aupr\u00e8s du juge prud&rsquo;homal les pr\u00e9conisations du m\u00e9decin du travail.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>En ne respectant pas les pr\u00e9conisations du m\u00e9decin du travail, sans fournir de justification valable, l\u2019employeur engage sa responsabilit\u00e9 sur le terrain de son obligation de s\u00e9curit\u00e9, voire sur celui de la discrimination li\u00e9e \u00e0 l&rsquo;\u00e9tat de sant\u00e9, comme en l&rsquo;esp\u00e8ce. <\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>Le refus du salari\u00e9 de lui donner acc\u00e8s \u00e0 son domicile ne lui permet pas de s\u2019en exon\u00e9rer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Telle est la question pos\u00e9e \u00e0 la Cour de cassation ayant donn\u00e9 lieu \u00e0 son arr\u00eat du 13 novembre 2025 (n\u00b024-14.322). Dans cette esp\u00e8ce, le m\u00e9decin du travail a pr\u00e9conis\u00e9 un am\u00e9nagement du poste d\u2019un salari\u00e9 avec deux jours de t\u00e9l\u00e9travail par semaine. L\u2019employeur a refus\u00e9 cet am\u00e9nagement, en justifiant son refus par le fait [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":28069,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_seopress_news_disabled":"","_seopress_video_disabled":"","_seopress_video":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas_manual":[],"_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable_all":"","_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28071","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-actualites-en-droit-social"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28071","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28071"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28071\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28073,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28071\/revisions\/28073"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/28069"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28071"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28071"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28071"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}