Court decisions coming out of France display a desire to better protect employees and dispel harassment, whether moral or sexual, in the workplace. With this evolving caselaw emerges new definitions and thresholds for harassment and obligations for employers.
Sexual harassment consists of repeated comments or behavior with a sexual or sexist connotation that either violates an individual’s dignity by being degrading or humiliating or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive situation for the individual.
“Sexual harassment” traditionally has referred to explicit behavior such as inappropriate comments or gestures. Today, the definition is broadening. A sexist climate or repetitive behaviors with sexist connotations can be enough to create a toxic work atmosphere and be recognized as harassment.
In November 2024, the Court of Appeal of Paris recognized an employee as a victim of sexual harassment because she worked in an open space where sexist remarks and suggestive images were found to exist without any act directly targeting her (Court of Appeal of Paris, 26 November 2024).
This ruling evolution is crucial: going forward, it is no longer necessary to prove an explicit intent to harm. It is the effect of behaviors on the person that matters.
Psychological harassment is based, in principle, on repeated acts that degrade working conditions or affect an employee’s mental health. However, judges are increasingly attentive to situations where a single event, if serious, can suffice.
For instance, an employee whose schedules were modified consistently without a valid reason, creating an extremely high level of stress, was recognized as a victim of harassment by a Court of Appeal of Bastia in February 2024, even though the facts were not systematic (Court of Appeal of Bastia, 13 February 2024).
Another important point is the burden of proof. Once the employee provides evidence suggesting that there was harassment, the employer must prove the contrary.
The French Supreme Court, in a 14 November 2024 decision, recognized the link between harassment and discrimination for the first time. The ruling clarified that employees need not demonstrate harm to their health or career (discrimination), nor prove differential treatment based on protected characteristics such as gender, race, or sexual orientation (harassment), and it is sufficient to show a toxic atmosphere or behaviors indicative of discriminatory harassment. This means that a discriminatory environment can be considered harassment, thereby linking the two concepts. Employers are required to take all necessary measures to end discrimination and educate employees on the subject.
In another recent example, a transgender employee was discriminated against by their employer, who forbade her from using her female first name or wearing makeup. A tribunal has considered such practices inacceptable and has ruled that gender identity must be respected in the workplace (Labor Court of Angers, 24 June 2024).
For employers, the message is clear: it is no longer enough to react. Preventing harassment is a legal obligation. This requires training, awareness-raising among teams, and clear mechanisms for reporting abuse.
Beyond the legal aspect, it is also a question of well-being and image. A company where harassment is ignored risks losing the trust of not only its employees, but also that of its partners and customers.
Recent court decisions show a real desire to better protect employees. Whether it is in the face of explicit behaviors or toxic work environments, the priority is repeatedly the same: to guarantee an environment where everyone feels respected and safe.
If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this Insight, please contact any of the following: