Court of cassation, Social div., March 11 2025, no. 23-16.415
An employee brought an action before the industrial tribunal alleging harassment. In this case, she complained her employer had issued her with an unjustified warning and had not asked her about taking her paid leave.
The Court of Appeal noted that the employer had not provided any justification for these two elements, but nevertheless dismissed the employee’s claim on the grounds that these acts “do not constitute moral harassment in that they did not have the effect of worsening the employee’s working conditions or impairing her physical health”.
In a ruling dated 11 March 2025 (Cass. Soc., 11 March 2025, no. 23-16.415), the Court of Cassation overturned the appeal ruling. According to the Court, the lower courts must draw the appropriate conclusions from their findings when they find that the employer has failed to substantiate the factors suggesting a situation of psychological harassment.
Accordingly, while the lower courts have the final say as to whether the employee establishes facts from which it can be presumed that harassment has taken place and whether the employer proves that the conduct complained of is unrelated to any harassment, it is irrelevant whether the conduct has had a tangible effect on the employee’s working conditions or health.
The Court of Cassation thus seems to consider that moral harassment can be characterised even when it does not result in a deterioration in working conditions.
This ruling appears to echo a decision of 14 January 2014 in which the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation had already held that “the mere possibility of such a deterioration is sufficient to consume the offence of moral harassment“, without the deterioration in working conditions having to be proven.
Here, the Court does not even mention such a possibility
For the record, Article L.1152-1 of the French Labour Code defines moral harassment as follows: “No employee shall be subjected to repeated acts of moral harassment the purpose or effect of which is to worsen his or her working conditions in such a way as to infringe his or her rights and dignity, to impair his or her physical or mental health or to compromise his or her professional future.
However, the Court of Cassation did not take note of this clarification in the text, and did not refer to either the “object” or the “effect” of the employer’s actions in order to characterise moral harassment, contenting itself with referring to the facts provided by the employee and the employer’s lack of objective elements to justify them.