A journalist from France Médias Monde obtained, through summary proceedings, the pay slips for the last three years of his 18 colleagues.
In its order of June 26, 2026, the Labor Court justified its decision by stating that the evidence presented by the journalist, precise and detailed, was such as to suggest the existence of unequal treatment potentially constituting discrimination, within the meaning of the applicable evidentiary rules, and that it thus constituted a legitimate ground within the meaning of Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, justifying the investigative measure requested for the purpose of producing the pay slips of the employees concerned, in order to allow the plaintiff to exercise his right to evidence.
By order dated June 26, 2026, the Boulogne-Billancourt Industrial Tribunal, sitting in summary proceedings, ruling by adversarial order and at first instance,
Provisionally,
Having regard to the provisions of Articles 9 and 484 to 492 of the Code of Civil Procedure;
Having regard to the provisions of Articles R. 1455-5 to R. 1455-10 of the Labor Code;
- WE ORDER the company FRANCE MEDIAS MONDE, represented by its legal representative, to provide Mr. X with the payslips for the last three years of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R.
All under penalty of a fine of 50 euros per day of delay and per document, starting on the sixty-first day following notification of this order;
- We find no grounds for referral regarding the remaining claims;
- We order FRANCE MEDIAS MONDE, represented by its legal representative, to pay Mr. X the sum of €1,500 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure;
- We order FRANCE MEDIAS MONDE to pay all costs of these proceedings, including any costs of enforcing this decision.
***
It is first necessary to clarify that, pursuant to Article R. 1455-5 of the French Labor Code, the jurisdiction of summary proceedings judges is based on three considerations:
• Urgency, in order to order any measures that are not subject to serious dispute or that are justified by the existence of a dispute;
• Unlawful disturbance and imminent harm, allowing for the implementation of necessary protective and remedial measures, even in the presence of a serious dispute;
• The granting of a provisional payment or the enforcement of the obligation, which is not seriously contestable.
Furthermore, according to Article 9 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, each party bears the burden of proving, in accordance with the law, the facts necessary to support their claim.
Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that: “If there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish, before any trial, evidence of facts upon which the outcome of a dispute may depend, legally admissible investigative measures may be ordered at the request of any interested party, by application or in summary proceedings.”
In this case, Mr. X states that he was employed by the defendant company under several fixed-term contracts, which were the subject of labor court proceedings that resulted in their reclassification as a full-time, open-ended contract.
He maintains that he is the victim of discriminatory treatment resulting in a violation of his right to equitable career advancement and indicates that he has seen the vast majority of his colleagues, journalists and editors who joined the staff within a comparable period of approximately two years, promoted to higher-level positions, or at the very least, partially assigned to different roles that would allow for future career advancement.
He argues that the summary table produced, listing start dates and successive positions held, highlights the career progression of several employees, revealing disparities in treatment.
The plaintiff also holds a disability recognition certificate (RQTH), which, according to him, could explain the unfavorable treatment.
Thus, under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish, before any trial, evidence of facts upon which the outcome of a dispute may depend, legally admissible investigative measures may be ordered.
In matters of discrimination or equal treatment, case law recognizes that the employee does not have access to comparative data held by the employer and that the production of anonymized payslips may be ordered when the evidence provided suggests potential discrimination.
In order to establish the existence of discrimination, Mr. X requests, pursuant to Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the production of documents detailing the career progression, employment contracts and amendments, annual performance reviews, promotions, pay slips for the last three years, and pay slips for the month of December of each year since the rehiring of eighteen colleagues.
In response, the company argues that the employee's request is unjustified, that several conditions relating to the admissibility of requests for investigation submitted pursuant to Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not met, and reiterates the evidentiary requirements applicable to discrimination cases under Article L 1134-1 of the Labor Code.
Regarding Mr. X's lack of career advancement compared to his colleagues of similar seniority, the company argues that Mr. X did not possess the required skills for the position he applied for (editorial coordinator of FMM's Arabic-language digital offering), which involved very broad responsibilities. The company further argues that it selected the most qualified candidate for this position, Mr. Z, and that this clearly does not constitute unequal treatment, thus implying the alleged discrimination based on his disability.
The company also points out that Mr. X did not change roles because he did not apply for positions that might have been suitable for him, which does not constitute unequal treatment compared to his colleagues.
She states that 6 of the 18 colleagues to whom Mr. X compares himself are journalists/editors, just like him, and that they have not received any special promotions; that 9 other colleagues obtained positions either after multiple applications or as a result of a court decision; and finally, that 3 colleagues have never held the position of journalist/editor.
She also maintains that Mr. X has never been excluded from temporary assignments, and that he has already filled in as editor-in-chief in 2019 and 2022. (Exhibits 4, 10, and 12 submitted by the plaintiff).
Regarding training, the company maintains that Mr. X received five training courses in 2024-2025 and points to the temporary positions offered to him as editor-in-chief, notably in 2019 and 2022, for a cumulative period of one year.
Finally, it indicates that his application for training on designing and managing a digital transformation strategy was rejected by the IDF (formerly FONGECIF) transition department, and that the reporter training has not yet been organized.
Mr. X states that he had only one performance review.
In response, the company first points out that Mr. X had extended periods of absence due to sick leave and vacation time and that he was not subject to any special treatment.
Regarding remuneration, the company states that Mr. X's salary is comparable to the average salary of journalists and editors and falls within the standard range according to collective bargaining agreements. It notes that not all employees can benefit from individual adjustments every year and that there is no objective basis for considering that he is being kept at a lower salary level than colleagues in strictly comparable situations.
Finally, the company indicates that Mr. X has benefited from the provisions of the company agreement on disability, having received specific HR support and regular monitoring by occupational health services, whose recommendations and workplace adjustments have been strictly adhered to.
Considering that the employer maintains that several employees in the comparative group have been promoted to different positions by prior court decision, and that the plaintiff, for his part, has not benefited from either this decision or the resulting career advancement, the Council considers that this circumstance is far from neutralizing the presumption of unequal treatment raised by the plaintiff; quite the contrary.
The applicant submits a comparative table outlining, for a panel of eighteen colleagues in what he considers a comparable situation, the following:
This table indicates the year of integration into the editorial staff under a fixed-term contract or permanent contract, as well as the successive positions held.
The Council reiterates that these precise and detailed elements suggest the existence of a difference in treatment that could constitute potential discrimination, within the meaning of the applicable evidentiary rules, and that they thus constitute a legitimate ground within the meaning of Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, justifying the requested investigative measure to obtain the pay slips of the employees concerned, in order to allow the applicant to exercise his right to evidence.
The Council finds that the request should therefore be granted and orders FRANCE MEDIAS MONDE, represented by its legal representative, to provide Mr. X with only the payslips for the last three years from A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R, under penalty of €50 per day of delay and per document, starting on the sixty-first day following notification of this order.
Regarding the ancillary requests:
The Council notes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 489 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that this order is provisionally enforceable by right, notwithstanding any appeal.
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 696 of the Code of Civil Procedure, France MEDIAS MONDE, the losing party in this case, shall bear the costs and any dependencies of this case, including any costs of enforcement of this decision.
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