In a decision dated December 17th, 2025, the Rennes Court of Appeal found Engie Energie Services guilty of wrongful dismissal due to sexual harassment, psychological harassment, and a failure to fulfill its duty of prevention against a female executive.
The Rennes Court of Appeal's judgment is very well-reasoned.
The judgment was not appealed to the Court of Cassation.
2) REASONS FOR THE DECISION
In its judgment of December 17, 2022, the Rennes Court of Appeal:
Reversed the judgment under appeal except insofar as it:
- held that the dismissal for incapacity of Ms. Y was null and void due to the sexual harassment she suffered,
- in its provisions relating to the financial penalties imposed on the employer (damages for wrongful dismissal, compensation in lieu of notice, related paid leave, back pay, Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure);
The Court confirms the remainder of the judgment,
Adding to this and ruling again on the overturned points,
Orders Engie Energie Services to pay Ms. Y the following sums:
- €5,000 in damages for sexual harassment,
- €5,000 in damages for psychological harassment,
- €5,000 in damages for failure to comply with the obligation to ensure the safety and health of workers,
Reminds that, pursuant to Article 1231-6 of the Civil Code, sums of a wage nature shall bear interest at the statutory rate from the date of receipt by the employer of the summons to appear before the conciliation board, and that other sums of a compensatory nature, pursuant to Article 1231-7 of the Civil Code, shall bear interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment awarding them;
Orders the capitalization of interest in accordance with Article 1343-2 of the Civil Code.
Orders Engie Energie Services SA to reimburse the relevant organizations for any unemployment benefits paid to Ms. Y, up to a limit of six months of benefits;
Orders Engie Energie Services SA to provide Ms. Y with a payslip, a certificate of employment, and a certificate for France Travail, all in accordance with this decision;
Orders Engie Energie Services SA to pay Ms. Y the sum of €3,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure for the appeal proceedings, in addition to the sum already awarded at first instance on this basis;
Dismisses Engie Energie Services SA's claim pursuant to Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure;
Orders Engie Energie Services SA to pay the costs of the appeal.
2.1) Regarding sexual harassment (harcèlement sexuel)
Engie Energie Services SA contests all allegations of sexual harassment in its appeal against the judgment under appeal. To uphold the appealed decision, Ms. Y maintains that her dismissal is null and void due to the sexual harassment she suffered. However, she requests that the judgment be overturned insofar as she was not awarded separate damages for the acts of sexual harassment, in addition to the damages for wrongful dismissal resulting from the sexual harassment she endured.
She also criticizes the labor court for failing to recognize that the acts of sexual harassment she suffered (and which were upheld by the lower court) also constituted psychological harassment.
She claims to have been subjected to:
- constant unwanted advances from Mr. B at work from the moment she arrived, during coffee breaks;
- an assault by Mr. B on June 21, 2018, namely that he entered her hotel room during a seminar on June 21, 2018, put his hands on her buttocks, and repeatedly attempted to kiss her and sleep in her bed;
- Persistent text messages from Mr. B between June and July 2018;
- Isolation by Mr. B after he rejected her advances;
- Several views of her LinkedIn profile by Mr. B;
Under Article L. 1153-1 of the French Labor Code, harassment by any person with the aim of obtaining sexual favors for themselves or a third party is prohibited.
According to Article L. 1153-2 of the French Labor Code, no employee, candidate for recruitment, internship, or in-company training may be penalized, dismissed, or subjected to direct or indirect discrimination, particularly with regard to remuneration, training, redeployment, assignment, qualifications, classification, professional advancement, transfer, or contract renewal.
Especially since, even when she was alone, or even talking to someone else, he would come up to her, interrupt her, and insist on accompanying her on a break.
Mr. G testifies that Mr. B, sober, made advances to Ms. Y on June 21, 2018: “I’m single, you’re single, why don’t we go out together?”
- Regarding the events of June 21, 2018
Ms. Y stated, during a meeting with her manager, Mr. Z, that… In the fall of 2018, Ms. Y reported that Mr. B entered her room, attempted to kiss her, placed his hands on her buttocks, and tried to lie down on her bed, inviting Ms. Y to do the same and spend the night with her. She added that upon her return from vacation, her working relationship with Mr. B deteriorated, as he was offended by her persistent refusal.
Ms. Y detailed the circumstances of the events she experienced on June 21, 2018, to her supervisor in the fall of 2018, and then to the Health, Safety and Working Conditions Committee (CHSCT) on March 28, 2019 (employee exhibit no. 18). She further detailed the events in her formal complaint (employee exhibit no. 80).
It is clear from all of these documents that Ms. Y's statements to several institutional representatives are precise, detailed, repeated, and consistent.
Furthermore, Mr. G testifies that Mr. B, sober, made advances toward Ms. Y on June 21, 2018: “I’m single, you’re single, why don’t we go out together?”
Moreover, when questioned, Mr. B admitted to being in Ms. Y’s room with her and attempting to kiss her. He also admitted to remaining in the room for an hour and a half, and that Ms. Y calmly rejected him and declined any romantic interest in him.
- Regarding Mr. B's persistent text messages during the period from June to July 2018
The employee submits as exhibit no. 3 all the text message exchanges she had with Mr. B starting on June 22, 2018. It is clear from these messages that she explicitly stated her refusal to have a relationship outside of work: “Yes, I don’t want anyone at the office,” “no sex at work (...).”
Several text messages were exchanged on June 22, 27, 28, 29, July 1, 26, and 31, 2018, revealing that Mr. B insisted on speaking with Ms. Y with a view to starting a romantic relationship, despite Ms. Y's unequivocal refusal.
- Regarding Mr. B's visits to her LinkedIn profile
Exhibits 8 and 8 bis from the employee show that Mr. B visited Ms. Y's LinkedIn profile several times a week before she blocked him. The employee has established factual elements which, taken together, suggest the existence of sexual harassment.
The employer, who bears the burden of proving that these facts do not constitute sexual harassment, argues, in particular, that the information relating to coffee breaks is not sufficient to characterize acts of sexual harassment, given that, as a new employee, her colleagues' primary concern was her integration.
However, the employer fails to demonstrate that Mr. B's requests during coffee breaks were solely related to welcoming and facilitating the integration of a new employee, as the statements of Mr. G and Ms. H are not effectively contradicted by any evidence submitted by the employer.
Regarding the events that took place on the night of June 21-22, 2018, the employer argues that they cannot constitute sexual assault because Mr. B denies having tried to sleep in her bed or having forced her to kiss him. However, contrary to the employer's assertions, Ms. Y does not report any form of violence or any element of surprise that would have prevented her from resisting. The fact that Mr. B's actions did not involve violence or surprise is irrelevant to the legal classification of the acts as sexual harassment.
The fact that Ms. Y did not describe a situation in which Mr. B forcibly entered her room is also irrelevant to the legal classification of the acts as sexual harassment.
Similarly, the characterization of acts as sexual harassment under labor law, as defined in Article L. 1153-1, 1°, of the French Labor Code, does not require the existence of an intentional element.
Regarding the various text message exchanges produced, while they confirm an apparently non-conflictual relationship between the two individuals, and while some of them relate to a professional matter, as the employer argues, the employer does not address the text messages that allege Mr. B's insistence on initiating a potential extra-professional relationship with Ms. Y.
If the employer states that no sexist atmosphere exists within the sales team, this assertion is still irrelevant to the legal classification of the acts of sexual harassment.
The employer maintains that Mr. B did not orchestrate any attempt to isolate Ms. Y, as several employees attested to the cordial relationship between Mr. B and Ms. Y during the management committee seminar held on November 8 and 9, 2018.
However, the court notes that, having only been in her position for a few weeks, Ms. Y's efforts to maintain a professional and cordial relationship with Mr. B, particularly in the context of a seminar organized by her employer aimed in part at fostering team cohesion, are irrelevant to the legal classification of the acts. Furthermore, these elements are independent of any objective justification for the established facts.
Furthermore, the fact that Ms. Y created a WhatsApp group to which she invited Mr. B, with whom she worked, has no bearing on the classification of the acts as sexual harassment.
While the employer argues that the email of September 5, 2018, written by Mr. B to Ms. Y and copied to Mr. C and Mr. R, does not contain any offensive remarks and is merely a professional email exchange, unrelated to any personal matters, the court notes that it is a reprimanding email, sent outside of working hours, targeting Ms. Y's work, which, according to Mr. B, could have led to the loss of the case […], a case for which Mr. B had previously sent Ms. Y a text message at 11:00 p.m. to thank her for her help. The court notes, as did the lower court, that Mr. C himself, Ms. Y's direct supervisor, acknowledged that this email was offensive.
The court considers that the email Mr. B sent to Ms. Y on September 5, 2018, reflects his annoyance at having been rejected.
The employer fails to demonstrate that Mr. B's actions are unrelated to any act of sexual or psychological harassment, and the court therefore finds that Ms. Y was uncomfortable with Mr. B entering her hotel room, feeling powerless to make him leave, especially since, having recently joined the company, she had only known him for a few weeks and was expected to maintain regular professional contact with him as a manager [...]. She therefore sought to remove him from her plans without jeopardizing her professional relationship with him or her position within the company. Ms. Y remained calm and, after discussions lasting over an hour, managed to persuade him to leave her room. However, Mr. B's sexually suggestive gestures and intentions were followed by persistent and repeated messages until Ms. Y's summer vacation.
These messages, proposing to revisit what had happened on the night of June 21-22, 2018, reflected Mr. B's persistent desire to begin a romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Y.
Therefore, and as the lower court judges declared, Mr. B's inappropriate gestures and persistence, despite Ms. Y's repeated refusal to have sexual relations with him, constitute repeated and non-consensual conduct that led to increasing distress and suffering for Ms. Y.
She will be awarded €5,000 in compensation for the harm resulting from the sexual harassment, reversing the lower court's judgment, as the lower court judges wrongly considered that the compensation for wrongful dismissal fully compensated Ms. Y.'s damages. Y.
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