In a ruling dated October 16th, 2025 (RG 23/07223), the Court of Appeal found RATP TRAVEL RETAIL liable for wrongful dismissal and workplace harassment of a project manager.
The Paris Court of Appeal also overturned the warning issued on September 12, 2016, for infringing on the employee's freedom of expression. This ruling follows a decision by the Court of Cassation on November 8, 2023 (No. 21-25.990), which partially overturned the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal of November 2, 2021. The employee was awarded €3,000 in damages for psychological harassment, €80,000 in damages for wrongful dismissal, and €3,000 under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.
The decision of the Paris Court of Appeal was not appealed to the Court of Cassation.
2) REASONS
In its decision of October 16th, 2026 (RG 23/07223), the Paris Court of Appeal, ruling in a contested judgment rendered publicly by making it available at the registry,
On the points subject to partial cassation,
Reverses the appealed judgment insofar as it dismissed the employee's claim for annulment of the warning issued on September 12, 2016, and his claims for damages related to psychological harassment and wrongful dismissal,
Ruling anew,
Orders the annulment of the warning issued on September 12, 2016,
Orders the dismissal of Mr. X to be null and void,
Orders RATP TRAVEL RETAIL to pay Mr. X:
- €3,000 in damages for psychological harassment,
- €80,000 in damages for wrongful dismissal,
- €3,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the French Labor Code Civil procedure,
Orders RATP TRAVEL RETAIL to reimburse unemployment benefits up to a limit of six months,
Orders the issuance of a corrected payslip, as well as a certificate of employment and a certificate for Pôle emploi (now France travail), in accordance with the provisions of this judgment, without the imposition of a penalty payment appearing necessary,
Dismisses RATP TRAVEL RETAIL's claim for legal costs,
Orders RATP TRAVEL RETAIL to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings,
Declares that the awards of damages shall bear interest at the statutory rate from the date of this judgment, and that the other awards shall bear interest at the statutory rate from June 25, 2019.
2.1) Regarding the request to annul the warning issued on September 12, 2016:
Article L.1333-1 of the French Labor Code states that: “In the event of a dispute, the labor court assesses the regularity of the procedure followed and whether the facts alleged against the employee are such as to justify a sanction. The employer provides the labor court with the evidence used to determine the sanction. In light of this evidence and that provided by the employee in support of their allegations, the labor court forms its opinion after ordering, if necessary, all investigative measures it deems useful. If any doubt remains, it is resolved in favor of the employee.”
Article L.1333-2 of the French Labor Code states that: “The labor court may annul a sanction that is procedurally irregular, unjustified, or disproportionate to the offense committed.” Under Article L.1121-1 of the French Labor Code, no one may impose restrictions on individual and collective rights and freedoms that are not justified by the nature of the task to be performed or proportionate to the objective pursued.
It follows from this text that, except in cases of abuse resulting from insulting, defamatory, or excessive remarks, employees enjoy freedom of expression both within and outside the workplace, subject only to restrictions justified by the nature of the task to be performed and proportionate to the objective pursued.
In this case, the warning issued to Mr. X on September 12, 2016, by Mr. R, the company president, states the following grievances:
“In an email to your former line manager, Mr. S, dated July 12, 2016, you indicated that he was exhibiting inappropriate behavior. You specifically mentioned “questionable management” of annual performance reviews, a “detrimental organizational structure,” and “abusive conduct” within your department.
As you also indicate in this email, you refer to a meeting I held on May 30, 2016, to discuss the organization of the company’s technical department, during which the potential issues surrounding your annual performance review were clearly raised.
Since these matters were taken into account by management and were being addressed, I cannot condone the content and tone of your email.”
You finally indicate that if you deem it necessary, this matter will be pursued through legal channels.
The statements made and the tone used in this email are exaggerated, denigrating, inappropriate, and threatening towards your management. These criticisms are in no way constructive.
Therefore, I am informing you that I have decided to issue you a warning.
Mr. X maintains that this warning should be rescinded because it sanctions him for exercising his freedom of expression in a normal and non-abusive manner.
The employer contests this, arguing that the employee's inappropriate language was unacceptable and clearly abusive, especially since he had been offered the opportunity to explain the content of his email, which he refused. He therefore considers that the warning constituted a proportionate sanction and did not infringe upon Mr. X's freedom of expression.
The court observes that the terms of the employee's email of July 12, 2016, do not appear, when considered within the context of the entire email and the ensuing exchanges, to be insulting, defamatory, or excessive. Indeed, the tone of the email is more measured than the few terms cited by the employer in his warning letter would suggest, and the employee explains in detail the events that led him to use them: the late submission of his 2015 performance review (interview conducted on February 5, 2016, and report submitted on June 23, 2016); the internal handling of an employee complaint in March 2016, which led to all employees being summoned to a meeting on March 29 and an internal investigation conducted that same day; The employee reported what he considered abusive practices to the labor inspectorate in April 2016, which he claimed had been ongoing for several years.
The report concluded that the employee's assessment, while negative, was well-reasoned and fell within his freedom of expression. It cannot be considered insulting, defamatory, or excessive. The fact that the employee mentioned the possibility of legal action in his letter does not constitute a threat, contrary to the employer's assertion. The employer is within its rights to indicate that it might consider legal recourse, without this being deemed offensive.
In light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the warning issued to Mr. X on September 12, 2016, constitutes a sanction for the non-abusive exercise of his freedom of expression, which renders it null and void.
Consequently, the judgment of the labor court will be overturned insofar as it dismissed the employee's claim for annulment, and, ruling anew, the annulment of the warning of September 12, 2016, will be ordered.
2.2) Regarding the claim for damages for psychological harassment
Pursuant to Article L.4121-1 of the French Labor Code, the employer has an obligation to protect the physical and mental health of its employees.
Pursuant to Article L.1152-4 of the same code, the employer must take all necessary measures to prevent acts of psychological harassment.
Under Article L.1152-1 of the same code, no employee shall be subjected to repeated acts of psychological 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.
In accordance with the provisions of Article L.1154-1 of the same code, it is incumbent upon the employee to present factual evidence suggesting the existence of harassment. Based on this evidence, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that these facts 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.
In this case, Mr. X cites the following elements in support of his allegations of workplace harassment:
- Reprimands from his manager during his 2010 performance review for having accompanied a distressed employee to her dismissal hearing in 2009:
Mr. X states that he assisted one of his colleagues during her pre-dismissal meeting in 2009, as no one else had agreed to do so, and this was verbally reprimanded by his superior during his performance review in 2010.
The court notes, however, that no evidence corroborates his claims. These facts cannot therefore be considered as evidence of workplace harassment.
- Sudden and insidious intrusions by his superiors into his various operations, aimed at hindering their proper execution and/or having them cancelled with the assistance of third parties outside the subsidiary:
Mr. X states that a few months before his dismissal, he repeatedly observed attempts by his superiors to provoke him into making mistakes in the management of the files under his responsibility. In support of his claims, he indicates that in February 2017, the company deliberately wrote to a key contact about one of his projects, without copying him, to discuss difficulties encountered on said project.
However, the mere fact of omitting to copy Mr. X on an email is insufficient to suggest harassment.
-Delay and criticisms contained in the evaluation carried out in 2015:
Mr. X states that although he made complaints to the staff representatives on January 26, 2015, his performance review, which should have taken place at the beginning of the year, was only held on April 10, 2015, and for the first time in years, he was subjected to numerous criticisms. He adds that his letter of appeal dated May 10, 2015, never received a response. He provides evidence of his claims from January 2015, the date and content of his performance review, and his letter of appeal dated May 10, 2015.
- Late delivery of the 2016 performance review report:
Mr. X indicates that while the performance review took place on February 5, 2016, his report was not given to him until June 23, 2016, more than four months after the review, without any explanation for this delay, especially given that he had denounced the toxic work environment and psychological harassment within the company in April 2016. The employee substantiates these claims with the documents provided.
- Notification of two unjustified sanctions, namely the warnings of September 12, 2016, and December 27, 2016:
Regarding the warning of September 12, 2016, it is annulled because it penalizes the employee's normal freedom of expression and is therefore unjustified.
Regarding the warning of December 27, 2016, the Paris Court of Appeal, in its judgment of November 2, 2021, definitively upheld the dismissal of the employee's request for annulment, as this point of the judgment was not subject to partial reversal. Therefore, this warning must be considered justified.
- Removal of files and obstruction of file review:
Mr. X states that, starting in September 2016, Mr. B, the new technical director seconded from the RATP (Parisian public transport operator), who arrived in early August 2016, was managing the technical department, allowing him to arbitrarily remove files from Mr. X and initiate a destabilization process, which continued until March 27, 2017. He cites files "W" and "O".
However, none of the evidence presented supports the claim of management maneuvers to obstruct Mr. X's work or remove files from him. The emails submitted as evidence are work-related exchanges and do not substantiate the employee's allegations.
This evidence cannot therefore be used to support the claim of workplace harassment.
Mr. X states that, starting in September 2016, Mr. B, the new technical director seconded from the RATP (Parisian public transport operator), who arrived in early August 2016, was managing the technical department, enabling him to arbitrarily remove files from Mr. X's file and initiate a destabilization process. - Increased pressure characterized by multiple, untimely, and supposedly urgent requests:
Mr. X produced an email from his superior dated March 1, 2017, asking him to quickly indicate when the necessary action could be taken, referring to two previous exchanges on this subject. This single email on a topic already discussed is insufficient to establish the facts alleged by the employee, and therefore this element cannot be considered as evidence of workplace harassment.
- Hostile and intimidating behavior by his superior, Mr. B, during the meeting of February 22, 2017:
Mr. X stated that he was summoned by his superior, Mr. B,
to an informal meeting during which Mr. B attempted to destabilize him and spoke aggressively towards him, which led to an investigation by the company's "psychosocial risk" unit. He produced the email sent to the company following this meeting, in which he denounced his superior's aggression and justified the intervention of the psychosocial risk unit following this incident.
- Unjustified suspension of March 23, 2017.
Mr. X argues that his suspension was abusive because the alleged misconduct did not justify it and that it was based on events dating back to January 2017, namely the failure to organize a mandatory pre-opening inspection for a C store.
However, this was a precautionary suspension within the framework of the dismissal procedure, and there is no basis for concluding that it was abusive, since the employee was accused not only of failing to conduct the mandatory inspection but also of his behavior during the meeting of February 22, 2017, which led to an investigation by the psychosocial risk assessment unit, resulting in a report dated March 1, 2017. Therefore, this element cannot be considered as evidence of workplace harassment.
It follows from the above that, taken together, the following facts suggest the existence of psychological harassment:
- The lateness and criticisms contained in the 2015 performance review,
- The late submission of the 2016 performance review report,
- The unjustified warning issued on September 12, 2016,
- Hostile and intimidating behavior by his superior, Mr. B, during the meeting on February 22, 2017.
In response, the employer states, regarding the circumstances of the February 22, 2017 meeting, that there was no violence on the part of Mr. B, who had wished to discuss a difficulty in case C and who had to ask Mr. X to leave his office due to the latter's behavior during the meeting. The court notes that the investigations conducted by the psychosocial risk unit revealed no physical violence and that the psychological abuse alleged by the employee was indeed experienced as such. However, it has not been demonstrated that Mr. B, who was called "dishonest" during the interview, acted in any way other than firmly asking him to leave his office. The employer explains these events by citing objective considerations unrelated to harassment.
Regarding the delayed performance reviews and reports, the employer states that these were exceptional oversights. However, it is worth noting that these delays of several months occurred for two consecutive years, in a context where the employee had filed complaints or grievances with management, employee representatives, and the labor inspectorate. Furthermore, the employer has not explained why it did not respond to the employee's letter of complaint dated May 10, 2015, concerning his performance review. These actions are not justified by any objective factors unrelated to harassment.
The employee also received a warning on September 12, 2016, which was overturned due to the infringement of his freedom of expression. Given that these repeated actions violated the employee's rights and dignity, it must be concluded that Mr. X was subjected to psychological harassment, for which he is entitled to compensation in the amount of €3,000.
The judgment will be overturned on this point, and the employer will be ordered to pay him this sum.Pour lire l’intégralité de la brève, cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous
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
Pas de contribution, soyez le premier