In a detailed 20-page ruling dated October 15, 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal ordered the judicial termination of the employment contract of a head builder at Manoir H.
The breaches identified by the Paris Court of Appeal included workplace harassment, undeclared work, breach of safety obligations, non-payment of overtime, failure to comply with maximum daily and weekly working hours, and failure to respect weekly rest periods.
The Court of Appeal ordered the judicial termination of the employment contract with the same effect as a wrongful dismissal.
In total, the head builder was awarded €67,000 gross.
1) SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The company Le Manoir H, which operates amusement attractions, hired Mr. X on an open-ended employment contract starting May 24, 2017. He was initially hired as a multi-skilled "Worker" (mechanic, electromechanical technician), and was subsequently promoted to "Head Construction Manager" in September 2017. The reference salary was set at €2,905.04 gross per month.
The contractual relationship was governed by the national collective bargaining agreement for leisure, attraction, and cultural venues.
Mr. X went on sick leave starting September 28, 2020.
On December 8, 2020, he reported a situation of workplace harassment by letter, stating that he was experiencing excessive workload and a deterioration of his working conditions that had negatively impacted his health.
Mr. X filed a claim with the Paris Industrial Tribunal on March 9, 2021, seeking the judicial termination of his employment contract.
By judgment dated December 6, 2021, the Paris Industrial Tribunal ruled as follows:
"Orders the termination of Mr. X's employment contract due to the exclusive fault of the company Le Manoir H, effective December 6, 2021;
Orders the company Le Manoir H to pay Mr. X the following sums:
- €5,000 in damages for Le Manoir H's failure to fulfill its obligation to ensure the health and safety of its employees;
- €3,853.05 in back pay for overtime worked between March 2018 and May 2019"
- €385.30 for accrued paid leave
- €5,000 in damages for failure to comply with the maximum weekly working hours
- €5,810.08 as compensation in lieu of notice
- €581 for accrued paid leave
- €3,268.17 as statutory severance pay
- €8,715.12 as compensation for unfair dismissal
Notes that, pursuant to Article R.1454-28 of the French Labor Code, these awards are provisionally enforceable by right, up to a maximum of nine months' salary, calculated on the average of the last three months' salary.
Sets this average at €2,905.04;
Orders the delivery of employment-related documents and a summary payslip, all in accordance with this decision;
Orders Le Manoir H to pay Mr. Laurent-X the sum of €1,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure;
Orders Le Manoir H to reimburse Pôle Emploi (the French public employment service) for the equivalent of 15 days of unemployment benefits pursuant to Article 1235-4 of the French Labor Code;
Dismisses Mr. X's remaining claims;
Dismisses Le Manoir H's claim pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure;
Orders Le Manoir H to pay all costs.
At the time the termination notice was presented, Mr. X had 4 years and 6 months of service.
His average gross monthly salary was last €2,905.04.
The company Le Manoir H regularly employed at least eleven employees at the time of the termination of the contractual relationship.
Manoir H appealed this judgment by filing a declaration electronically on April 11, 2022.
By judgment dated February 1, 2024, the Paris Commercial Court initiated insolvency proceedings against Le Manoir H and appointed SELARL Abyme, represented by Mr. Y, as the insolvency administrator of Le Manoir H.
By summons for forced intervention served on October 15, 2024, on the legal entity,
SELARL B, represented by Mr. Y, as the insolvency administrator of Le Manoir H, was joined as a party to the proceedings.
No representation of counsel has been filed for SELARL B, represented by Mr. Y in his capacity as judicial liquidator of the company Le Manoir H.
The initial submissions of the company Le Manoir H will therefore be considered for the examination of the dispute.
By summons for forced intervention served on November 8, 2024, on the legal entity, the AGS (Wage Guarantee Fund) was joined as a party.
No representation of counsel has been filed for the AGS.
2) REASONS
In its judgment of October 15, 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal:
Reversed the judgment except insofar as it ordered the termination of the employment contract of
Mr. Laurent X due to the exclusive fault of the company Le Manoir H, effective December 6, 2021;
Ruling again on the overturned points and adding thereto,
Fixes Mr. X's claim against the liabilities of the company Le Manoir H at the following amounts:
- €8,000 as damages for psychological harassment;
- €5,000 as damages for breach of the duty of prevention de la santé et de la sécurité ;
- €3,000 in damages for failure to comply with the maximum daily working hours, in violation of Article L. 3121-18 of the French Labor Code;
- €3,000 in damages for failure to comply with the maximum weekly working hours;
- €3,000 in damages for failure to respect weekly rest periods;
- €15,000 in damages for wrongful dismissal;
- €5,810.08 as compensation in lieu of notice;
- €581 for accrued paid leave;
- €3,268.17 as statutory severance pay;
- €6,775.05 gross as back pay for overtime worked between March 2018 and May 2019;
- €677.50 gross for accrued paid leave;
- €12,928.56 as a lump-sum indemnity for undeclared work.
Orders SELARL B, represented by Mr. Y in his capacity as judicial liquidator of the company Le Manoir H, to provide Mr. X with the certificate of employment, pay slips, and the certificate intended for France Travail, all of which must be prepared in accordance with the ruling in this decision.
Dismisses the claim for default interest with respect to damages.
Declares that the other sums awarded, which constitute wage claims, will accrue interest at the statutory rate from the date of receipt by the company Le Manoir H of the summons to appear before the conciliation board until the date of the judgment opening the insolvency proceedings on February 1, 2024.
Declares this judgment enforceable against the AGS (Wage Guarantee Fund).
States that the sums awarded to Mr. X will be guaranteed by the AGS (Wage Guarantee Fund) within the legal limits of the ceiling applicable on the date of termination.
Dismisses Mr. X's claim under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Dismisses all other and contrary claims by the parties.
Orders SELARL B, represented by Mr. Y in his capacity as judicial liquidator of the company Le Manoir H, to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
2.1) Regarding the request for judicial termination
The lower court judges ordered the judicial termination of the employment contract due to the employer's fault, finding that the company Le Manoir H had committed serious breaches making the continuation of the employment contract impossible, namely:
- an excessive workload constituting psychological harassment and a breach of the obligation to ensure health and safety, given that Mr. X regularly worked beyond 7:00 p.m.; furthermore, he was required to supervise temporary employees and external contractors, which constituted an additional workload;
- work performed without protection and outside his scope of expertise, particularly when he was required to work on the roof of the building to clean the gutters without the employer providing him with adequate safety equipment;
- non-compliance with legal and regulatory provisions relating to working hours.
The court concluded that these shortcomings, particularly the abnormal working hours, had contributed to the deterioration of Mr. X's physical and mental health, thus justifying the termination having the effects of a dismissal without just cause.
By way of appeal, the company Le Manoir H contests the serious breaches alleged against it; it maintains that Mr. X's workload was reasonable, that it fulfilled its safety obligations, and paid all overtime owed.
The employer maintains that:
- Mr. X never experienced an excessive workload and that his working conditions were good;-
Mr. X himself emphasized his versatility during the hiring process, as evidenced by his cover letter and resume (documents no. 24 and 25, not produced);
- his responsibilities were clearly defined, and he was not the line manager of the entire artistic team, a role held by Ms. To., as demonstrated by her report (employer document no. 104, not produced).
- the company consistently ensured that it avoided any overload by using external service providers and temporary employees during peak periods, such as the creation of "MAD DIMENSION" or the opening of the Brussels site, as evidenced by the service provider invoices and temporary employment contracts (documents no. 5 to 13 and 48, not produced);
- The company allegedly even hired Mr. X's partner and friends on his recommendation to ensure good team cohesion (documents no. 10, 11, and 46 were not produced).
Mr. X requests confirmation of the judgment regarding the judicial termination of his employment contract and reversal of its effects, primarily requesting a ruling that the dismissal is null and void; secondarily, he requests confirmation of the dismissal being without just cause.
It is established case law that an employee may request the judicial termination of their employment contract due to breaches by their employer of their obligations that are sufficiently serious to make the continuation of the employment contract impossible. The burden of proof lies with the employee requesting the judicial termination of the employment contract to demonstrate that the employer has committed sufficiently serious breaches of its obligations to prevent the continuation of the employment contract.
The court must therefore examine the arguments based on psychological harassment, breach of the duty of care, and non-compliance with legal and regulatory provisions relating to working hours.
a) On psychological harassment
Mr. X is seeking €10,000 in damages for psychological harassment, by way of reversal of the judgment; the company Le Manoir H opposes this claim.
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.
In this case, Mr. X cites the following facts:
- the excessive workload imposed by the employer, combined with harmful management methods, constitutes organizational harassment that has directly affected his health and justifies the termination having the same effects as a wrongful dismissal;
- the organizational harassment is characterized by the deterioration of his working conditions resulting from the company's organization;
- he suffered an excessive workload due to the multiplication of his responsibilities after his promotion (supervision, management of multiple projects), which led to a diagnosed burnout syndrome (documents no. 4 and 5);
- he cites statements from colleagues (Mr. and Mrs. To., St., Ga., Vi., Sa., Ka) who testify to working days regularly exceeding 10 hours and a state of manifest exhaustion of the team
(Documents Nos. 13, 14, 15, 20, 28, 29);
- Degrading management methods: these constituted "additional psychological pressure," and he cites testimonies describing "intrusive behavior" and "forced and unhealthy friendly relationships" on the part of management (statements from To. (Exhibit No. 28), St. (Exhibit No. 29), and Vi. (Exhibit No. 14)); the employer's contradictory statements lack probative value due to the witnesses' close ties with the manager (opposing Exhibits 37, 46, and 47 produced by Mr. X);
- Regarding the employer's failure to fulfill its duty of prevention and the lack of investigation, he cites the employer's inaction following his complaint as a serious and constitutive breach; He thus reported a situation of workplace harassment in writing on December 8, 2020 (Exhibit 8); the employer announced an internal investigation by letter on December 23, 2020 (Exhibit 9), but he was never summoned or interviewed;
- the failure to implement an investigation constitutes in itself a breach by the employer of its obligation to prevent risks, which justifies compensation;
- the employer's justifications (Covid, relocation) are unfounded: the employer had ample time to conduct this investigation between January and October 2021;
- the context of mass departures and deteriorating health characterizes the situation of workplace suffering within the company; The departures of many employees are not linked to the pandemic, contrary to what the employer claims, as evidenced by the statement of Ms. To., who declares that "the lack of manpower caused the departure of the entire artistic team [...] due to physical and psychological exhaustion" (document no. 28), and that of Ms. Ka., who testifies to the "recurrence of people leaving their positions in situations of psychological and/or physical exhaustion" (document no. 20); several colleagues left the company after sick leave or burnout (Bu., Ma., To., Ca);
- He establishes a direct link between the deterioration of his working conditions and his state of health, proven by medical certificates which report "psychological suffering that he attributes to his working conditions" and "severe anxiety at the prospect of returning to work" (documents no. 4 and 5).
Mr. X thus establishes the material existence of specific and consistent facts, which, taken together, allow for the presumption of psychological harassment against him.
In its defense, the company Le Manoir H argues:
- Mr. X's working conditions were good, that the relationships were friendly, and that Mr. X's state of health is due to external factors;
- the positive atmosphere is demonstrated by numerous training and inspirational trips to the United States and London, in which Mr. X participated enthusiastically, as evidenced by photographs (documents no. 36, 38, 41, not produced) and a statement from Ms. Ki. describing a "friendly" atmosphere (Exhibit 37 produced by Mr. X), and thank-you messages from the employee himself (Opposing Party Exhibit 11, Exhibit 43 not produced);
- The employer was attentive and close to his employees: he ordered meals to eat together (Exhibits 76, 77, 78 not produced), organized outings (Exhibits 79, 80 not produced), granted salary advances (Exhibits 68 to 70 not produced), and checked on Mr. X during his sick leave or personal difficulties (Exhibits 86, 87 not produced); the exchange of friendly messages for birthdays or the spontaneous sharing of wedding photos by Mr. X demonstrate this good relationship (Exhibits 82 to 85 not produced).
- Mr. X's deteriorating health is not related to his working conditions but to external factors;
- Mr. X's stress stems from the uncertainty generated by the Covid-19 pandemic, as evidenced by messages in which he expresses his stress regarding the company's future (document no. 91, not produced) and by a note from occupational health where he mentions his concern about the continuation of business (opposing party's document no. 7);
- Mr. X is by nature a "stressed" person, as evidenced by a statement (document no. 46, not produced);
- Mr. X never complained about his working conditions before his letter of December 8, 2020 (document no. 20 not produced), even though tools existed (Works Council, dedicated email address) to do so (document no. 111 not produced);
- The employer justifies the lack of an internal investigation after the allegations were made by a combination of exceptional factors: the closure of the establishment on October 29, 2020, the placement of employees on partial unemployment, teleworking (document no. 19 not produced), the relocation of the head office (documents no. 2 and 2 bis not produced), and the reorganization of operations made it materially impossible to conduct an investigation;
- The individuals in charge of the investigation, Mr. DLS (HR) and Ms. Bl. (Works Council), were themselves on extended sick leave or left the company, preventing the investigation from continuing;
- The employer disputes the validity of the statements produced by Mr. X, which they claim are "purely fabricated" (documents no. 118 to 121 not produced).
- Mr. St. even returned to work for the company, which contradicts the existence of a toxic work environment (document no. 122 not produced).
Upon examination of the documents produced and the arguments presented, the court finds that Le Manoir H has failed to demonstrate that the facts materially established by Mr. X are justified by objective elements unrelated to any harassment. Moral harassment is therefore established, it being specified that Mr. X suffered an overload of work due to the multiplication of his responsibilities after his promotion (supervision, management of multiple sites) which led him to a diagnosed burnout syndrome (documents no. 4 and 5) as evidenced by the statements of employees (Mr. and Mrs. To., St., Ga., Vi., Sa., Ka) who testify to working days regularly exceeding 10 hours and a state of manifest exhaustion of the team (documents no. 13, 14, 15, 20, 28, 29); Furthermore, the court finds that the employer failed in its duty of prevention and failed to conduct an investigation: indeed, Mr. X reported a situation of workplace harassment in writing on December 8, 2020 (Exhibit No. 8), and despite the announcement of an internal investigation on December 23, 2020 (Exhibit No. 9), it was never carried out, and the obstacles alleged by the employer were not substantiated.
The court finds that the compensation necessary to fully redress the harm suffered by Mr. X as a result of the workplace harassment should be assessed at €8,000.
The appealed judgment is therefore reversed insofar as it dismissed Mr. X's claim for damages for workplace harassment, and ruling anew on this point, the court sets Mr. X's claim against the liabilities of the company Le Manoir H at €8,000 as damages for workplace harassment.
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