The employee obtains a conviction from BFM TV / Nextprod for moral harassment, violation of the safety obligation and dismissal without cause.

He gets a total of 33,000 euros.


By application of the provisions of article L1154-1 of the labor code, it is up to the employee who claims to be the victim of moral harassment to present facts suggesting the existence of this harassment; this is defined, according to article L 1152-1 of the labor code, by repeated acts which have as their object or effect, independently of the intention of their author, a deterioration of the employee's working conditions, likely to violate their rights and dignity, to alter their physical or mental health or to compromise their professional future.

In view of these elements, it is up to the defendant to prove that these actions do not constitute such harassment.

A situation of moral harassment is thus essentially deduced from the observation of a detrimental deterioration of the employee's working conditions following repeated actions by the employer revealing an abnormal and abusive exercise by the latter of its powers of authority, direction, control and sanction.

He emphasizes that this tension is the cause of discomfort in his workplace and of several work stoppages which followed, and that he alerted his superiors to his situation and to the behavior of Mr. Z towards him. , but that he only got an appointment after two requests, and that the resulting improvement did not last.

It mainly contributes to the debates:

- the certificate from a sound engineer, Mr. M., who describes the behavior of Mr. Z towards Mr. , bullying and humiliation.

- a certificate from his attending physician, which provides a history of his health problems, alternating between anxiety-depressive episodes attributed by Mr. X to tension at work, and spinal cord pathology.

- a first email addressed to his N+3 on July 8, 2016 in the following terms: “The

June 9, 2016, I suffered a major illness at work which required the intervention of the firefighters and my custody at the hospital. Since that day I have been off work. After numerous health tests, doctors are unanimous: very significant stress and tension are due to these health problems. Indeed, since I joined the company, Mr. W has carried out excessive surveillance of my work, with a form that sometimes lacks cordiality, and even pressure such that this has consequences on my personal life, and today of which on my health.

- a second email, addressed to the same person on September 19, 2016 in the following terms: “Following the lack of response to my email sent on July 8, 2016 (copied below) and the new problems encountered with Mr. Z upon his return from vacation which once again caused me to be off work, I will come back to you to ask to meet with you in order to discuss and resolve the problems encountered, exposed in this e-mail”.

- a report from the IUP dated May 16 and 17, 2018 reporting recurring problems with a manager, to which no lasting solution was provided, despite a report relating to serious and imminent danger.

It thus presents elements likely to suggest the existence of moral harassment.

In response, the company Nextprod argues that the certificate from Mr.

X repeats his own words and is therefore devoid of probative force. He also emphasizes that Mr. W is himself in proceedings with the company, so that his certificate does not have much probative value, especially since he does not relate any specific facts that he personally witnessed.

In view of all of these elements, the court notes that if indeed the attestation of an employee personally in proceedings with the employer must be viewed with caution, there remains sufficient convincing evidence. Anxio-depressive disorders are proven by medical evidence, and concomitantly with these work stoppages, Mr. X repeatedly denounced Mr. Z's behavior towards him.

The behavior of this manager was also denounced by the staff representative institutions, and is not really contested by the employer, who simply notes the age of these facts, and indicates that this employee has left the company during 2019.

To read the full brief, 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)


.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)