Establishing moral harassment does not require the employer’s repeated actions to be of different types.

Under Article L1152-1 of the Labor Code, identical actions—provided they are repeated—can constitute moral harassment if their purpose or effect is to degrade an employee’s working conditions in a way that may infringe upon their rights and dignity, impair their physical or mental health, or compromise their professional future.

To determine whether moral harassment exists, the judge must examine all the facts substantiated by the employee—taking into account any medical documentation provided—to assess whether these facts suggest the existence of moral harassment.

This is the ruling of the Court of Cassation in a judgment dated October 21st, 2026 (No. 25-10.793), which has been published in the official *Bulletin*.

The significance of this judgment lies in its clarification of the concept of "repetition" regarding actions that constitute moral harassment, and its reminder that trial judges are obligated to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the facts alleged by the employee.

I. Analysis.

This judgment of October 21, 2026, falls within the established case law of the Social Chamber regarding the characterization of moral harassment and the adjustment of the burden of proof in employment-related litigation.

The Court of Cassation provides two significant clarifications concerning the concept of "repetition" of actions and the method by which trial courts should assess the facts.

First, it reiterates that the "repetition" required by Article L1152-1 of the Labor Code does not necessitate a variety of different actions attributed to the employer.

This is not a new position. In a judgment dated November 14, 2024 (No. 22-21.391), the Court of Cassation had already affirmed that actions of the same nature could constitute moral harassment, provided they were repeated.

The judgment of October 21, 2026, reinforces this interpretation by overturning a Court of Appeal decision that had treated several hundred professional requests as a single, materially established event.

The Court of Cassation thus distinguishes the nature of the actions from their repetition. The fact that several instances of conduct are identical does not mean that they constitute a single, solitary event.

In this case, repeated work-related demands made during periods when the employment contract was suspended—or during periods of partial activity—could not be dismissed solely on the grounds that they were of the same nature.

However, the mere repetition of identical actions is not, in itself, sufficient to constitute moral harassment. Such actions must also have the purpose or effect of degrading working conditions in a way that could lead to one of the consequences specified under Article L1152-1 of the Labor Code.

Furthermore, the ruling reaffirms the obligation of trial courts to conduct a comprehensive assessment of all evidence presented by the employee.

Under Article L1154-1 of the Labor Code, an employee is not required to prove the existence of moral harassment on their own; rather, they must present factual elements that suggest its existence.

The court must then examine all established facts—taking into account any medical documentation provided—to determine whether they suggest that moral harassment has occurred.

If they do, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the actions in question do not constitute harassment and that their decisions were based on objective factors unrelated to any form of harassment.

In this instance, the Court of Appeal of Chambéry could not simply examine the work-related demands in isolation; it was required to weigh them against the medical evidence submitted by the employee—specifically, medical certificates documenting anxiety-depressive disorders and the occupational physician’s assessment of the employee’s unfitness for work. This requirement for an overall assessment is consistent with established case law—notably a ruling from June 8, 2016 (No. 14-13.418)—in which the Court of Cassation previously affirmed the necessity of examining all alleged facts in their entirety.

The significance of the ruling from October 21, 2026, therefore, lies not so much in establishing a new definition of moral harassment, but rather in confirming two complementary requirements: that the "repetition" may involve identical actions, and that the legal classification of such conduct must be based on an overall assessment of the circumstances.

This approach is particularly relevant when the alleged conduct consists of repeated work-related requests made during periods of rest, leave, or the suspension of an employment contract.

It serves as a reminder to employers that a series of similar work-related demands can contribute to a finding of moral harassment, even in the absence of behavior that is abusive, humiliating, or explicitly hostile.

Ultimately, the Court of Cassation does not itself determine whether moral harassment occurred in this specific case. Instead, it finds fault with the methodology employed by the lower courts, leaving it to the court to which the case is remanded to assess whether the established facts warrant such a classification—and, if so, to determine the implications for the validity of the employee’s dismissal.

Thus, the ruling confirms that moral harassment is not defined by a variety of different types of misconduct, but rather by the repetition of actions and an overall assessment of those actions in the context of the employee’s working conditions.

To read the full brief, click the link below.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/harcelement-moral-travail-repetition-agissements-identiques-peut-caracteriser,59797.html

Sources.

Cass. soc., 21 octobre 2026, n°25-10.793, publié au Bulletin.

#harcèlementmoral

# charge probatoire

Traitement humiliant et dégradant portant atteinte à la dignité d’un agent RATP = harcèlement moral = Licenciement nul (CA Paris 21/01/2026 https://www.chhum-avocats.fr/publications/traitement-humiliant-et-degradant-portant-atteinte-a-la-dignite-dun-agent-ratp-harcelement-moral-licenciement-nulnbspca-paris-21012026

Harcèlement moral, licenciement nul, heures supplémentaires (forfait jours privé d’effet), rappel de variable :  Lagardère Media condamnée à payer 185 K euros à un Directeur (CPH Paris départ 29 mai 26, def) https://consultation.avocat.fr/blog/frederic-chhum/article-2982797-harcelement-moral-licenciement-nul-heures-supplementaires-forfait-jours-prive-d-effet-rappel-de-variable---lagardere-media-condamnee-a-payer-185-k-euros-a-un-directeur-cph-paris-depart-29-mai-26-def.html

Secteur Conseil - Deloitte Conseil condamnée à payer 241 000 euros à un Senior Manager pour harcèlement moral, heures sup’, licenciement nul, rappel de prime contractuelle (CA Versailles 15 juin 26, définitif) https://www.chhum-avocats.fr/publications/span-stylefont-familyquottimes-new-romanquotserifstrongsecteur-conseil-deloitte-conseil-condamneacutee-agrave-payer-241-000-euros-agrave-un-senior-manager-pour-harcegravelement-moral-heures-suprsquo-licenciement-nul-rappel-de-prime-contractuelle-ca-versai

Suite à des actes de harcèlement moral, un directeur salarié du CRE RATP obtient la résiliation judiciaire de son contrat de travail. https://www.village-justice.com/articles/Suite-des-actes-harcelement-moral-Directeur-salarie-CRE-RATP-obtient,24712.html

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et ancien membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300

Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

Lille: : 45, Rue Saint Etienne 59000 Lille – Ligne directe +(33) 03.20.57.53.24