In a ruling dated January 14, 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal found the RATP Works Council guilty of workplace harassment, wrongful dismissal, and breach of the duty of care of an accounting manager.
The employee was also awarded back pay for overtime.
In total, she received €58,000 gross.
1) REASONS
In a judgment dated January 14, 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal (RG 22/10026), ruling by a contested judgment delivered publicly by making it available at the court registry, the parties having been previously notified under the conditions provided for in Article 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
AFFIRMS the judgment insofar as it ordered the RATP Works Council (CSCE RATP) to pay Ms. X compensation in lieu of notice, for accrued vacation pay, and severance pay, as well as non-recoverable costs, and insofar as it dismissed her claim based on undeclared work;
Reversing the judgment on the remaining points and ruling anew,
DECLARES the dismissal null and void;
The Paris Court of Appeal ORDERS the RATP Works Council (CSEC RATP) to pay Ms. X the following sums:
- €23,155.26 as compensation for wrongful dismissal,
- €9,952.68 as back pay and €995.27 for accrued vacation pay,
- €4,000 in damages for psychological harassment,
- €5,500 in damages for failure to prevent harassment;
ORDERS the RATP Works Council (CSEC RATP) to reimburse France Travail for unemployment benefits paid following Ms. X's dismissal, up to a limit of six months, and orders that a certified copy of this judgment be sent by the court clerk by regular mail to the management of France Travail in accordance with the provisions of Article R. 1235-2 of the French Labor Code;
The Court orders the RATP Works Council (CSEC RATP) to reimburse France Travail for the unemployment benefits paid to Ms. X, up to a limit of six months of benefits;
Pursuant to Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, the Court orders the RATP Works Council (CSEC RATP) to pay Ms. X the sum of €3,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure;
The Court dismisses the remaining claims of the parties;
The Court orders the RATP Works Council (CSEC RATP) to pay the costs.
1.1) Regarding Overtime
Pursuant to Article L 3171-4 of the French Labor Code, in the event of a dispute concerning the existence or number of hours worked, the employer must provide the judge with evidence to justify the hours actually worked by the employee.
In the event of a dispute concerning the existence or number of hours worked, it is the employee's responsibility to present, in support of their claim, sufficiently precise evidence regarding the unpaid hours they claim to have worked, so as to allow the employer, who is responsible for monitoring working hours, to respond effectively by producing their own evidence.
The judge forms their opinion by taking into account all of this evidence in light of the requirements set forth in the aforementioned legal and regulatory provisions.
After reviewing the documents submitted by both parties, if the judge determines that overtime hours were worked, they have the sole discretion to assess the amount of overtime and set the corresponding amounts, without being required to specify the details of their calculation.
Ms. X is requesting payment of €9,952.68 as back pay for the 285.58 hours of overtime she claims to have worked between April 30, 2018, and June 24, 2019.
She maintains that she has provided sufficient evidence by submitting a summary table of hours worked between April 30, 2018, and June 24, 2019, deducting break times. She states that she regularly complained about her excessive workload, but that the RATP Works Council (CSEC RATP) never acted on her concerns. She also produced her performance review from October 16, 2017, in which she requested the ability to recruit staff with a profile suited to the CRE's needs. She emphasized the understaffing of her team, the regular use of temporary workers, her inability to delegate certain tasks due to the understaffed team, and the ineffectiveness of the tools at her disposal.
She specified that she had difficulty motivating the team, which was complacent and limited to its own scope. The administrative and financial director stated: “All the issues raised by (Ms. X) were not new: numerous difficulties are encountered both within the team and with the tools that impact its scope of action. The road to normalcy will be long and difficult; it is essential that she gain a broader perspective and receive support through specific training programs within the EP and EA.”
Ms. X presents specific evidence suggesting the existence of overtime.
It is therefore incumbent upon the employer, who is responsible for monitoring working hours, to provide a substantive response by producing its own evidence.
The RATP Works Council (CSEC RATP) maintains that the employee provides no proof of a request from her employer to work overtime, nor any conclusive evidence to justify such work, producing only a table drawn up retroactively without any adversarial process, based on the employee's working hours without mentioning break times.
It should be noted that, in the absence of any evidence provided by the employer to establish the actual hours worked by the employee, contrary to its obligation to monitor them,
It should be emphasized that the employee did indeed deduct lunch break hours from her claim to the court, since her table shows 382.06 hours while she is only requesting payment for 285.58 hours; consequently, her claims will be granted.
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
Pas de contribution, soyez le premier