French employment law - Unlawful dismissal, workplace harassment, and a toxic work environment: SEMISO ordered to pay €58,375 to an agency manager (CA Paris September 17th, 26)
In a well-reasoned judgment dated September 17, 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal affirmed that the employee was the victim of workplace harassment, both directly and as part of a broader situation of managerial harassment (harcèlement d’ambiance), and that this situation not only degraded her working conditions but also had consequences for her health. The claim of workplace harassment was therefore established.
The Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the individual agreement for a fixed number of working days was invalid. However, it did not grant the employee overtime pay.
The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's award of €10,000 in damages for workplace harassment and €4,000 for breach of the employer's obligation to ensure a safe working environment. The employee also received a back payment of a performance bonus of €3,000.
She also received back pay for her notice period and €24,000 in compensation for wrongful dismissal.
In total, the branch manager received €58,375 gross.
2) REASONS
By judgment of September 17th, 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal:
SETS ASIDE the judgment insofar as it ordered the Société d’économie mixte de construction et de rénovation de la ville de Saint Ouen to pay Ms. X the sums of €2,450 gross as a supplement to the special severance pay for incapacity due to occupational causes, €12,000 as compensation in lieu of notice, plus €1,200 for accrued vacation pay, considering that the termination had the effects of a dismissal without just cause,
AFFIRMS it in all other respects, except to specify that the amounts awarded are gross,
Ruling anew and adding thereto,
DECLARES that the judicial termination has the effects of a dismissal null and void as of January 27, 2021,
ORDERS the Société d’économie mixte de construction et de rénovation de la ville de Saint Ouen to pay Ms. X the following sums:
- €11,250 gross as compensation in lieu of notice, plus €1,125 gross for accrued vacation pay,
- €24,000 gross as damages for wrongful dismissal,
- €2,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
ORDERS that wage claims shall accrue interest at the statutory rate from the date the employer receives the summons to appear before the conciliation and orientation board, and that compensation claims shall accrue interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment awarding them,
ORDERS the Société d’économie mixte de construction et de rénovation de la ville de
Saint Ouen to reimburse France Travail for the amount of unemployment benefits paid to Ms. X, up to a limit of three months,
ORDERS the Société d’économie mixte de construction et de rénovation de la ville de Saint Ouen to hand over to Ms. X pay slips, a work certificate, and a France Travail certificate in accordance with this judgment within two months of its notification,
FINDS that there is no basis for a penalty payment,
DISMISSES the parties' remaining claims,
ORDERS the Société d’économie mixte de construction et de rénovation de la ville de
Saint Ouen to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that requests seeking to "establish that" when they
are merely the restatement of arguments do not constitute claims within the meaning of Article 954 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
I. Exécution du contrat de travail
1.1 On the Request for Judicial Termination
The judge orders the judicial termination of the employment contract at the employer's fault in the event of sufficiently serious breaches by the latter of its obligations, such as to prevent the continuation of the employment contract.
The judicial termination of the employment contract has the effects of a dismissal that is null and void or without just cause, with all its legal consequences.
The effective date of the judicial termination can only be set as the date of the decision ordering it, provided that the contract has not been terminated before that date and that the employee is still employed by the employer.
When an employee requests the termination of their employment contract due to actions they attribute to their employer, and is subsequently dismissed, the judge must first determine whether the request for judicial termination was justified.
The employee maintains that the employer committed multiple breaches justifying the judicial termination of her employment contract. She cites the following:
- The existence of instances of workplace harassment,
- The modification of her contractual job classification,
- The lack of set objectives,
- The ineffectiveness of the individual agreement for a fixed number of working days,
- The non-payment of overtime,
- The non-payment of compensatory time off,
- The failure to comply with maximum daily and weekly working hours.
The employer disputes the alleged breaches.
It is necessary to examine the breaches that the employee cites in support of her request for termination.
1.2 On Workplace Harassment
Pursuant to Article L.1152-1 of the French Labor Code, no employee shall be subjected to repeated acts of workplace harassment that have the purpose or effect of degrading their working conditions in a way that is likely to infringe upon their rights and dignity, impair their physical or mental health, or jeopardize their professional future.
According to Article L.1154-1 of the same code, when a dispute arises concerning the application of Articles L. 1152-1 to L. 1152-3, the employee must present factual evidence suggesting the existence of harassment. In light of this evidence, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that these actions do not constitute harassment and that their decision is justified by objective factors unrelated to any harassment. The judge forms their opinion after ordering, if necessary, all investigative measures they deem useful.
It follows from these provisions that, in order to determine whether psychological harassment has occurred, the judge must examine all the evidence presented by the employee, taking into account any medical documents produced, and assess whether the established facts, considered as a whole, allow for the presumption of harassment. If so, it is then up to the judge to determine whether the employer proves that the actions alleged do not constitute such harassment and that its decisions are justified by objective factors unrelated to any harassment.
The employee maintains that the actions constituting psychological harassment originated with Ms. A, who had clearly expressed to certain colleagues her desire to get rid of her by implementing destabilizing tactics.
Furthermore, she alleges having been subjected to the following actions:
- Assignment of tasks requiring lower qualifications;
- Withholding information essential to the performance of her duties and exclusion from email chains;
- Assigning tasks with impossible deadlines in order to place Ms. X in a situation of professional failure;
- Vague instructions and maneuvers designed to place her in a situation of professional failure;
- Sending instructions on weekends and late at night, creating stress for her to respond to;
- Excessive, denigrating, condescending, or aggressive remarks in response to her requests to perform her work;
- Refusal of training;
- Excessive monitoring by demanding to be copied on all emails sent,
the submission of minutes for each meeting held by Ms. X with her colleagues, as well as a weekly report;
- Direct management and poaching of employees from her team by excluding her;
- Failure to set objectives for 2020 and successive changes to her
scope of responsibility;
- Attempted to replace the employee during their sick leave through external recruitment;
- Refusal to implement teleworking in violation of the occupational physician's recommendations.
She adds that she was also a victim of managerial harassment.
The employer denies any harassment.
As a preliminary matter, it appears from the undated organizational chart produced by the respondent that
Semiso is chaired by Mr. B, its managing director is Mr. C, and the company comprises four departments: Human Resources, headed by Ms. D; Planning and Assets, headed by Ms. E; Rental Management and Tenant Satisfaction (DGL), headed by Mr. F; and Finance, headed by Mr. G.
The employee reported to the DGL. The deputy director, reporting to Mr. F, was Ms. A. Within the central services, four department heads reported to the director and deputy director: the Pricing/Invoicing/Charges/Commerce/Insurance department; the Allocation and Social Action department, headed by Ms. H; the Collections and Litigation department, headed by the employee; and the Works and Intervention Management department, headed by Ms. I.
Ms. A subsequently replaced Mr. F as director following his departure in January 2020.
The employee maintains that she was the victim of actions directly affecting her and also that she was subjected to managerial harassment.
She states that this situation contributed to the deterioration of her health, specifying that she was on sick leave from February 12 to March 27, 2020 – she provides the corresponding sick leave certificates – as well as a certificate from Dr. P dated February 11, 2020, indicating that the employee presents with an anxiety-depressive syndrome related to a situation of workplace harassment. She provides her certificate of incapacity dated November 17, 2020, which exempts the employer from reassignment, specifying that any continuation of the employee's employment would be seriously detrimental to her health.
Regarding the individual actions alleged by the employee, it has not been materially established that, during her sick leave, the employee was not, as she claims, deliberately given access to information intended to complicate the performance of her contractual duties. This is because, while on sick leave, it was necessary to ensure continuity of service, and since she was on sick leave, she could not receive work emails.
As the evidence submitted to support this claim is not conclusive, it has not been materially established that new staff were recruited for her department without informing the employee upon her return from sick leave.
The employee, who asserts that the occupational physician recommended teleworking and that the employer did not follow this recommendation, has not provided any opinion from the occupational physician to that effect. Furthermore, the labor inspector has not cited this opinion either, noting only that other employees in the company benefit from teleworking. It is therefore not materially established that the employer refused the teleworking arrangement prescribed by the occupational physician.
However, it is materially established that:
- By email dated December 20, 2019, Ms. A asked the managers of the "DGL" departments to handle reception duties for 30 minutes per day – according to a table to be completed – during the breaks of the person responsible for reception and the call center. This is not part of the employee's job description and constitutes a subordinate task.
By email dated February 11, 2020, at 7:25 a.m., Ms. A asked the employee to send her a PowerPoint presentation covering five topics by 5:30 p.m. that same day, in preparation for a meeting scheduled for the following day. Today's email exchanges reveal that the employee indicated she would be unable to fulfill the request within the given timeframe. Ms. A responded that she acknowledged the employee's refusal and objections to cooperating and consolidating the agreed-upon data. Contrary to the employer's assertion, the content of the exchanges provides no evidence to suggest that Ms. A sent this expanded request to the employee before that date. The grievance concerning the assignment of tasks within impossible deadlines is therefore substantiated.
In an email dated May 20, 2020, Ms. A asked the employee to send her the minutes of the meetings she held remotely with members of her department. In an email dated May 27, 2020, Ms. A asked the employee to "systematically send her copies of all correspondence and emails sent to each of your colleagues from that day forward in order to monitor your activity," adding that this was a "work instruction to be strictly followed."
In an email dated March 27, 2020, Ms. A asked the employee to process the management indicators for March 2020 by sector, while the difficulty...
Mr. J, a housing manager, testifies that Ms. A did not greet the employee, looked at her contemptuously, and told her she wanted to "get rid of" the employee.
The employee thus presents factual elements which, taken together with the medical evidence, suggest the existence of harassment. It is incumbent upon the employer, in light of this evidence, to prove that these actions do not constitute harassment and that its decision is justified by objective factors unrelated to any harassment.
Regarding the employee's surveillance, while the department head's request to the department head to be informed of remote department meetings was indeed objectively justified in that it allowed for better team organization and coordination, the same cannot be said of the request to systematically copy the department head on emails sent to her team. This was not the practice followed until now, and such a decision, which constitutes significant surveillance by a department head, is not explained and therefore not justified by objective factors.
As for the publication of a job posting for a permanent position for the employee, the employer informed the employee that it was a temporary position because there was uncertainty about her availability due to her sick leave.
However, the job posting clearly states that it is a permanent position. He argues that the recruitment ultimately did not take place and that no grievance can be held against him on this basis. This circumstance does not constitute an objective reason for having definitively published a job posting while the employee was on sick leave, and it is neither alleged nor established that this absence disrupted the company's operations.
Regarding the recruitment of an employee in place of the employee put forward by the employee, this element is based on an objective reason: the employer's right to decide on the individuals it recruits.
Regarding the terms used by Ms. A towards the employee, given the hierarchical positions of the parties and the abrupt, even contemptuous tone used by Ms. W (appellant's exhibits 10, 12, 47, and 44.2), it cannot be justified, as the employer maintains, as proof of discord between the employees, especially since the employee's requests were not expressed in insulting or excessive terms. Regarding the other materially established facts, the employer cites no objective reason to justify its decisions.
The employee also indicates that she was subjected to collective managerial harassment.
It should be noted that management methods within a company that have the effect of degrading an employee's working conditions and are likely to impair their physical or mental health constitute workplace harassment, without the need for the employee to demonstrate that they were personally targeted by this harassment.
The employee submitted the following evidence:
A letter dated January 31, 2020, addressed to the director and signed by eleven employees, including the employee herself, complaining about Ms. A's actions since she took up her position, accusing her of: humiliation, lack of consideration, intimidation, threats, disrespect, unattainable objectives, a strong sense of anxiety, a harsh tone towards colleagues, uncontrolled anger, and hateful looks towards colleagues, in addition to, more generally, a deteriorating work environment, and requesting a meeting.
Letters and complaints from Ms. N, Ms. O (who resigned in April 2020 due to her working conditions), and Ms. I.
The letter addressed to the employee by the labor inspector on August 2, 2021, which partially reiterates the conclusions of the AW Conseils firm mentioned by the employer following the letter of January 31, 2020, which highlighted "a context of overload, conflict, and resentment." "Lack of fairness," adding that the environment in which staff operate "is currently unsafe and provides fertile ground for behavioral and operational lapses."
It is also mentioned that the firm noted "the lack of conflict resolution and restraint in written communication and attitudes has led to situations of intense tension, resulting in suffering, exclusion, and disrespect."
The labor inspector also indicated that she had interviewed eleven employees and concluded with these words: "The recurrence and consistency of a total of 11 testimonies regarding Ms. A's behavior, which consisted of frequently shouting, making insulting/degrading remarks, making unjustified criticisms; ignoring employees, and giving them unsolicited treatment."
1.3 Regarding the Change in Contractual Qualification
The employee maintains that Ms. A imposed on her the responsibility for the social action department in addition to that of litigation and debt collection, which notably involved supervising two additional employees, even though these are two complementary but fundamentally distinct activities. She argues that this constitutes a modification of her employment contract.
She maintains that this modification has taken effect.
The employer counters that the employee is attempting to conflate an alleged change in her duties with the negotiations that have taken place since December 2019 regarding a promotion involving a broadening of her responsibilities and a proposed salary increase, which she refused due to dissatisfaction with the proposed financial increase. The employer adds that it respected the employee's decision to refuse and that the proposed modification has not taken effect. It appears from the email exchanges between Ms. A, Mr. C, and Ms. D at the end of 2019 that it was decided to entrust the employee with a broader management scope in exchange for an increase in her salary, and that the discussions broke down.
No evidence supports the employer's claim, without providing any proof, that this constituted a professional promotion for the employee.
It is established that the plan was to integrate the social action unit—employing two staff members—into the employee's department. This unit had previously been part of the allocation and social action department headed by Ms. H.
Mr. J testifies that the reorganization was announced by Ms. A at a meeting on December 16, 2019, and that Ms. X had expressed her refusal. The employee has provided evidence demonstrating that, contrary to the employer's claim, the proposed modification took effect without her consent:
In an email sent by Ms. A to Ms. H on January 24, 2020, Ms. H indicated that the CESF – the department in question – reports to Ms. X.
This is also evident from the organizational chart established as part of the business continuity plan for the Rental Management and Tenant Satisfaction Department, which shows that the Social Action Department is under the employee's responsibility.
Given the different nature of the activities, this constitutes a modification of the employee's assigned duties and scope of intervention, unilaterally imposed by the employer, and therefore constitutes a modification of her employment contract. The grievance regarding the unilateral modification of the employment contract is substantiated.
1.4 Regarding the lack of set objectives
The employee's employment contract stipulates a fixed salary and a variable salary based on qualitative and quantitative objectives.
It was previously established that the objectives for 2020 were set in November 2020. This grievance is substantiated.
To read the full article, click on the link below.
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
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
Commentaires
Rédigez votre commentaire :
Les réactions des internautes
<% comment.content %>
<% subcomment.content %>