French employment law - Humiliating and degrading treatment that undermines the dignity of an RATP employee = psychological harassment = Unlawful dismissal (Paris Court of Appeal, January 21st, 2026)

1) REASONS

In a decision dated January 21st, 2026 (RG : 22/07288), the Paris Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's decision in its entirety,

Ruling anew and adding thereto,

Declared and ruled that the dismissal of Mr. X was unlawful pursuant to Article L.1152-3 of the French Labor Code,

Ordered the RATP to pay Mr. X the following sums:

- €5,000 in damages for psychological harassment,

- €15,566 in damages for unlawful dismissal,

- €3,677.49 as severance pay,

- €5,188.69 as compensation in lieu of notice,

- €518.87 as of the compensation in lieu of paid leave relating to the notice period,

Declares that all awards are subject to any applicable social security contributions, with the employer responsible for making the usual deductions and the employee responsible for contesting them, if necessary, before the competent court,

Declares that the damages awarded to Mr. X shall bear interest at the statutory rate from the date of this decision,

Declares that the wage claims awarded to Mr. X shall bear interest at the statutory rate from the date of receipt by the RATP of the summons to appear before the conciliation board,

Orders the RATP to provide Mr. X with the certificate of employment and the certificate intended for France Travail, all these documents to be drawn up in accordance with the provisions of this decision, within two months of notification of this decision,

Orders the RATP to reimburse the relevant organizations for all or part of the unemployment benefits paid to Mr. X, from the date of his dismissal to the date of the judgment rendered, within the limit of six months of unemployment benefits,

Orders RATP to pay Mr. X the sum of €3,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

Dismisses the parties' other and contrary claims,

Orders RATP to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

1.1) Regarding psychological harassment

Mr. X requests, by way of reversal of the judgment, the sum of €10,000 net in damages for psychological harassment and the annulment of his dismissal.

Pursuant to Article L. 1152-1 of the French Labor Code, no employee shall be subjected to repeated acts of psychological harassment that have the purpose or effect of degrading 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. 1152-2 of the French Labor Code, no employee may be penalized, dismissed, or subjected to any direct or indirect discriminatory measure, particularly with regard to remuneration, training, redeployment, assignment, qualifications, classification, professional advancement, transfer, or contract renewal, for having suffered or refused to suffer repeated acts of psychological harassment, or for having testified about or reported such acts. Article L. 1154-1 of the same code stipulates that in the event of a dispute, the employee concerned must present factual evidence suggesting the existence of harassment. It then falls to the employer, in light of this evidence, to prove that these actions do not constitute harassment and that their decision is justified by objective factors unrelated to any harassment.

Mr. X (the employee) cites two categories of repeated actions to characterize the psychological harassment of which he claims to have been a victim:

- confinement for nearly seven hours (June 3, 2019)

- failure to provide the agreed-upon work for four months (from June 3 to October 3, 2019)

These actions resulted in a deterioration of his working conditions likely to harm his physical and mental health as well as his professional future.

He maintains that:

- he was summoned for questioning by his supervisor (Ms. Y) and the head of internal investigations (Mr. R) upon arriving for his shift at 6:05 p.m. on June 3, 2019.

- his cell phone was allegedly confiscated at the entrance to the Grenelle building (documents 15 and 16).

Colleagues present for a briefing witnessed this confiscation (documents 15 and 16).

- he was held in this room for nearly seven hours, unable to leave, contact his colleagues, or have a staff representative present (documents 15 and 16).

- during this "interrogation," the head of internal investigations called him a "liar" and a "thief." He also threatened him with criminal charges, indicating that his statements could be forwarded to the police (document 13). - such a situation, akin to kidnapping, had no other objective than to make him "confess" under duress.

- From June 3, 2019, Mr. X was assigned to the Grenelle hub and isolated.

- He was reportedly given no work during this period, with the exception of August 2019 (during the construction period).

- Mr. B, a mobile agent and coordinator, testifies that he remained at the Grenelle hub without any assignments or tasks to perform, except during the construction work. Mr. B specifies that he reported for work every day at the same location, which allows him to testify to this. He describes this situation as humiliating and mentions its impact on the employee's reputation.

- Since the obligation to provide work rests with the employer, it is incumbent upon the RATP to justify the tasks he allegedly performed, which it fails to do, merely stating that it "maintained his activity."

- The dismissal of November 20, 2019, is invalid because it occurred in the presence of acts of psychological harassment. The facts presented by Mr. X are corroborated by documents 13, 15, 16, and 29 produced by the employee, which show that he was placed alone in a room in the RATP premises on June 3, 2019, from 6:30 p.m. until 1:35 a.m., that his phone was taken from him, that he then had a meeting with Mr. R, that the latter called him a liar during the interview, and that he was assigned to the RATP Grenelle division from June 3, 2019, to October 3, 2019, where he was not given any tasks except during a period of construction work.

Mr. X has thus established the material existence of specific and consistent facts which, taken as a whole, allow for the presumption of psychological harassment against him, given that Mr. X was subjected to an excessively long period of restraint on June 3, 2019, and to isolation at the RATP Grenelle depot from June 4 to October 3, 2019, visible to all staff working at or passing through the depot, it being specified that this exposure was humiliating.

In light of the factual elements thus presented by Mr. X, it is incumbent upon the RATP to prove that the interrogation after he was placed alone in a room for more than six hours and the four-month isolation were justified by objective factors unrelated to any harassment.

The RATP maintains that psychological harassment has not been established. She disputes the alleged facts, characterizing them as mere assertions or misinterpretations by Mr. X.

She argues that:

- the hearing of June 3, 2019, does not constitute harassment or unlawful confinement.

- it appears from the statement signed by Mr. X (document no. 18) that he was only asked to turn off his cell phone, as was the head of internal investigations, and that it was in no way taken from him.

- the statements produced by Mr. X lack probative value.

- Mr. X provides no evidence of having been called a "liar" and a "thief."

- The head of internal investigations merely stated that the statement could be given to the police if a complaint were filed, which is not a threat but information (Exhibit 18).

- The interview was simply a matter of taking a statement as part of an investigation into suspected fraud.

- Mr. X's reassignment to the Grenelle division was related to the serious allegations (malfunctions related to cash management).

- Mr. X continued working despite his change of location.

- Mr. B's statement (Exhibit 29) is contested because he was part of an audit team and reported for duty in Grenelle but did not remain there, making his testimony about what Mr. X did during his shift unlikely.

Upon examination of the evidence presented and the arguments presented, the court finds that the RATP has failed to demonstrate that the facts materially established by Mr. X are justified by objective elements unrelated to any harassment.

Indeed, Mr. X was forced to undergo an interrogation after being placed alone in a room on RATP premises on June 3, 2019, from 6:30 p.m. until 1:35 a.m., without union assistance. This situation, by its duration and context, constitutes a disproportionate and vexatious form of pressure.

Forcing an employee to remain alone in a room for such a period, depriving him of all contact with the outside world, constitutes humiliating and degrading treatment that infringes upon his dignity. The employer's claims that it was a "simple statement-taking exercise" are insufficient to remove the coercive and abusive nature of this event.

Regarding the prolonged and repeated exclusion, it is established that Mr. X was assigned to the Grenelle division from June 3 to October 3, 2019. Mr. B's statement (document no. 29) confirms that Mr. X was on site "without any mission or task to perform."

Although the employer contests the probative value of this statement, citing Mr. B's status (controller), it has not produced any concrete evidence (activity logs, written assignments) demonstrating the actual tasks assigned to Mr. X during this period.

The fact that an investigation is underway or that serious misconduct is alleged does not justify leaving an employee without work for four months. The employer's failure to provide work during this period is not justified by relevant objective factors. RATP has not proven that these actions were unrelated to any harassment.

The court finds that Mr. X was subjected to an excessively long period of restrictive measures on June 3, 2019, constituting acts of psychological pressure, and to isolation and deprivation of work over a four-month period from January to October 2019.

Consequently, the court finds that Mr. X was a victim of psychological harassment, resulting in a deterioration of his working conditions likely to harm his dignity and his professional future, and therefore overturns the lower court's judgment on this point.

The court determines that the compensation necessary to fully redress the harm suffered by Mr. X as a result of psychological harassment should be assessed at €5,000. It is specified that this award will be subject to any applicable social security contributions, with the employer responsible for making the usual deductions and the employee responsible for contesting them, if necessary, before the competent court.

Pursuant to Article L.1152-3 of the French Labor Code, the dismissal in this context is null and void.

The appealed judgment is therefore reversed insofar as it dismissed Mr. X's claims relating to workplace harassment, and ruling anew on this point, the court orders the RATP to pay Mr. X the sum of €5,000 in damages for workplace harassment and declares Mr. X's dismissal null and void.

To read the full article, click on the link below.

https://consultation.avocat.fr/blog/frederic-chhum/article-2978999-french-labour-law-unlawful-dismissal-workplace-harassment-ratp-convicted-of-humiliating-and-degrading-treatment-infringing-on-an-employee-s-dignity-paris-court-of-appeal-january-21st-26.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