The French Supreme Court affirms that "management methods within the company that have the effect of degrading an employee's working conditions and are likely to impair their physical or mental health constitute workplace harassment without the employee needing to demonstrate that they were personally targeted by this harassment." This is what the Court of Cassation affirms, for the first time, in a ruling dated December 10, 2025 (24-15.412) published in the official bulletin.

This ruling should be upheld.

1) Workplace harassment due to company management methods: the employee does not have to prove that they were personally targeted by this harassment!

The Court of Cassation affirms, in a landmark ruling, that management methods within a company that have the effect of degrading an employee's working conditions and are likely to impair their physical or mental health constitute workplace harassment without requiring the employee to demonstrate that they were personally targeted by this harassment.

The Court of Appeal noted that several employees of the store where the woman in question worked had reported psychological harassment by their two supervisors, both to management and during the investigation launched by the employer following this report. They described pressure to resign, blackmail, disrespect, and insults, and specified that numerous sick leaves had been prescribed to various employees. The court further noted that the investigation report included consistent testimonies from each of the employees, including that of the woman in question, who confirmed the statements made by her colleagues in the email of denunciation, citing incidents concerning her personally as well as the deterioration of her health.

The court added that the labor inspector had identified a number of workplace violations, partially corroborating the complaints submitted to him, particularly regarding movement between the store and the stockroom. On these grounds alone, which established that the management methods within the company had degraded the employee's working conditions and were likely to impair her physical or mental health, and without being required to conduct an investigation rendered unnecessary by its findings, the court legally justified its decision.

To substantiate a claim of psychological harassment, the employee need only be a member of the group targeted by the harassment [1].

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

www.chhum-avocats.fr

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