Dismissal for gross misconduct in Morocco in 2026: rights and remedies

Dismissal for gross misconduct in Morocco allows the employment contract to be terminated immediately, but only where the acts are serious, attributable to the employee and sufficiently proven. The central provisions are Articles 39 and 61 of Law No. 65-99 on the Labour Code, promulgated by Dahir No. 1-03-194 of 11 September 2003. In practical terms, merely writing “gross misconduct” in a letter is not enough. An isolated error, reduced performance or a professional disagreement does not become serious solely because the employer has chosen to classify it as such.

Article 39 cites, in particular, theft, breach of trust, public intoxication, use of narcotics, physical assault, serious insult and disclosure of a professional secret that caused harm to the company. It also mentions the deliberate and unjustified refusal to perform work falling within the employee’s competence, unauthorised absence exceeding four days or eight half-days over a twelve-month period, and serious damage to equipment caused intentionally or through gross negligence. Each classification nevertheless depends on the actual circumstances.

The list in Article 39 is not entirely exhaustive because the provision uses the term “in particular”. Courts may find that conduct not expressly listed constitutes gross misconduct where it is comparably serious and makes continuation of the employment relationship impossible. The internal rules, contract or collective agreement may specify professional obligations, but they do not deprive the court of its power of review. Judges examine, in particular, the employee’s duties, length of service, disciplinary record, the harm caused and whether the sanction is proportionate to the acts.

For misconduct that does not reach this degree of seriousness, Articles 37 and 38 provide for progressive disciplinary action comprising a warning, a reprimand, a second reprimand or suspension not exceeding eight days, followed by a third reprimand or a transfer. Exhaustion of these sanctions during the same year may lead to a dismissal being considered justified. The distinction from professional incompetence must also be kept in mind: this generally means an objective inability to meet the position’s normal requirements, rather than deliberate disobedience or a serious disciplinary offence.

The purpose of the hearing is not to have the employee sign an admission prepared in advance. The employer must set out identifiable facts and allow the employee to respond before the decision is taken. In practical terms, the employee may ask for the dates, locations, persons present, alleged harm and documents used against them. The employee may acknowledge that an event occurred while disputing that it was intentional, attributable to them or serious. A chronological, documented response is generally more useful than a blanket refusal to provide an explanation.

The representative chosen from among the company’s employee representatives or trade union representatives may take notes and ask for key observations to be included in the record. The Code does not automatically grant a lawyer the right to participate in this internal meeting, unless the employer agrees or a more favourable collective provision applies. However, nothing prevents the employee from consulting a lawyer beforehand. The lawyer may review the notice, identify sensitive issues and prepare a statement accompanied by documents such as time records, leave authorisations or medical certificates.

Before signing the record, the employee must read it in full and check that it accurately reproduces their explanations. If the document is incomplete, the employee may request a correction or add a brief reservation next to their signature. The employee must never sign a blank page or a document stating that they admit misconduct that they dispute. Refusal to sign does not automatically mean that the record is deemed not to exist. In that event, a detailed response should be sent promptly by registered letter or through a judicial officer to establish the date of the objection.

Absence from the meeting does not necessarily deprive the employer of its disciplinary authority where the notice was duly received and the employee provides no justification for being unable to attend. An illness, accident or serious constraint should therefore be reported immediately, with supporting evidence and a reasonable request for postponement. If the employer refuses or the procedure is deadlocked, the labour inspector may be contacted under Article 62. The record, reservations and correspondence exchanged often become central evidence before the court hearing employment matters.

Article 66 requires the employer to issue an employment certificate within eight days after the end of the contract. This document states, in particular, the start and end dates and the positions held, without any assessment likely to harm the employee. The employee should also request any missing payslips, details of the final payment and the information needed to check the termination declared to the CNSS. Reviewing the career statement makes it possible to identify quickly any under-declared wages or missing contribution period.

The final settlement receipt is governed by Articles 73 to 75. It must itemise the amounts paid and contain the information required by law. The employee may challenge it within sixty days after signing it by means of a traceable written document identifying the disputed amounts or rights. A general waiver clause does not replace the calculation of wages, leave and bonuses. Note that this sixty-day period is separate from the ninety-day time limit for bringing a court challenge against the dismissal.

Individual employment disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance sitting in social matters. Employees benefit from legal aid rules in social matters, subject to the exact classification of the claim and checks by the court registry. Certain expenses may nevertheless remain payable, particularly for a judicial officer, an expert assessment, a sworn translation or copies. In 2026, lawyers’ fees for ordinary first-instance proceedings are often observed to range between 3,000 and 8,000 dirhams, depending on the city and complexity. This range is neither official nor mandatory.

First-instance proceedings frequently take between six and eighteen months, and sometimes longer if a party is difficult to summon, an expert assessment is ordered or hearings are adjourned. An appeal may add several months. These timeframes are based on court practice and are not guaranteed. To avoid adjournments, the employee should gather the contract, payslips, notice, record, dismissal decision, lawfully retained professional emails, medical certificates, time records and CNSS statement.

In practice, the burden of justifying an acceptable ground for dismissal rests with the employer, which must establish the facts stated in its decision. This principle is linked to Article 65, which requires the dismissal letter to state reasons, and to the Court of Cassation’s settled case law on the review of grounds for dismissal. Article 63 must not be cited as the basis for the burden of proof: it governs delivery or dispatch of the decision within forty-eight hours after it is made. This distinction is decisive in an application or written submissions.

Evidence commonly produced includes time records, business emails, incident reports, inventories, bailiffs’ reports, witness statements and expert reports. A general allegation of “loss of trust” is insufficient. Likewise, a criminal complaint does not by itself prove that the employee committed the alleged acts. The social court may assess disciplinary evidence, but it must take account of the binding effect of final criminal decisions where the legal conditions for such effect are met.

Video surveillance and digital monitoring tools must comply with Law No. 09-08 on the protection of personal data and with CNDP requirements. The employee must normally be informed of a surveillance system, which must pursue a legitimate purpose and remain proportionate. A camera installed in a location where it infringes privacy, or indiscriminate access to personal email, may be challenged. The judge will assess the lawfulness and evidential weight of the recording in light of the entire case file.

The employee may invoke lack of evidence, disproportionality of the penalty, failure to comply with the hearing deadline, a prior penalty concerning the same acts or concealed discrimination. Moroccan social case law regularly holds that a vague ground or mere loss of trust does not replace proof of specific facts. Depending on the circumstances, it also penalizes dismissal based solely on conduct that has already been sanctioned. The exact references of the applicable judgments must be researched on the Court of Cassation portal according to the facts of the case.

On the employer’s side, the most common mistakes are a hearing held after the eight-day deadline, vague reasons, minutes drafted as a confession and notification for which receipt cannot be proved. Adding new allegations later is also risky. Case law published by the Court of Cassation consistently reiterates that loss of trust must be based on verifiable facts. It also recognizes that trial judges must examine the actual seriousness of the facts rather than automatically adopting the classification given by the company.

Another mistake is to characterize poor performance as gross misconduct. In performance cases, courts consider in particular whether the targets were realistic, known to the employee and comparable to those of colleagues in a similar situation. They also verify the existence of assessments, warnings, training or support. Conversely, a deliberate refusal to perform a task clearly falling within the employee’s duties may fall under Article 39. The distinction therefore depends on the facts, not on the wording used in the letter.

On the employee’s side, waiting for negotiations to fail beyond the ninety-day period is particularly dangerous. It is also risky to sign a settlement without understanding its scope or to allow the sixty-day period for challenging the final settlement receipt to expire. Useful evidence must be retained lawfully, without taking confidential files unrelated to the dispute or infringing the data rights of customers or colleagues. Every summons, registered-mail envelope, set of minutes and letter must be dated and copied.

The lawyer verifies the classification of the misconduct, the chronology under Articles 62 to 65, the admissibility of evidence and the separate calculation of claims. The lawyer may prepare for the hearing, arrange for a bailiff’s report, conduct negotiations and file the application before the deadline expires. In September 2026, any proposed reform must still be checked against the text officially published in the Official Bulletin and any transitional provisions. A government announcement or press commentary does not, by itself, alter the rights applicable to the case.