Sexual or sexist remarks made to several employees, or such behavior in front of several employees, may be subject to harassment by each of them [1].
The judgment of the Rouen Court of Appeal, which dismissed the employee's claims for damages for sexual harassment and for wrongful dismissal on the grounds that the existence of at least one specific and detailed fact allowing for the presumption of sexual harassment against her had not been established, must therefore be overturned. This is despite the fact that the Court of Appeal's findings established that, given the repeated sexually or sexist remarks and behaviors made or exhibited by her supervisor in front of her and her colleagues, she had been forced to endure a humiliating and degrading work environment, regardless of whether she was directly targeted by these remarks or behaviors.
The Social Chamber of the Court of Cassation has established the concept of ambient sexual harassment (Cass. Soc. May 28, 2026, 24-22.754, published in the Bulletin).
3) Decision of the Court of Cassation.
The Court of Cassation followed the employee's reasoning and quashed the judgment rendered on March 14, 2024, between the parties, by the Rouen Court of Appeal, except insofar as it dismissed Ms. [L]'s claim for psychological harassment and rejected Victor's company's counterclaim for damages.
The court referred the case back to the Caen Court of Appeal.
First, according to Article L1153-1,1, no employee shall be subjected to sexual harassment, defined as repeated remarks or behavior of a sexual nature that either infringe upon their dignity due to their degrading or humiliating nature, or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.
It follows that remarks of a sexual or sexist nature addressed to several employees, or such behavior in front of several employees, may be subjected to harassment by each of them. Furthermore, according to Article L1153-3 of the Labor Code, no employee may be sanctioned, dismissed or subjected to discriminatory measures for having testified or reported facts of sexual harassment.
Article L1154-1 of the French Labor Code stipulates that any provision or act contrary to the aforementioned articles is null and void.
To dismiss the employee's claims for damages for sexual harassment and for wrongful dismissal, the judgment states that the employee testified to having witnessed, on several occasions, Mr. [D]'s sexual harassment of his colleagues after the disciplinary action taken against him for the same reason in November 2019, by repeating some of the inappropriate remarks he had made: "Did you get really screwed last night?" "Did you have good sex yesterday?", while emphasizing that these questions were addressed to his colleagues and not to her personally.
The ruling also notes that the employee submitted statements from several of her colleagues. The first statement denounced the sexual harassment she herself had suffered at the hands of Mr. [D] without providing any specific details about her. The second stated that, following the creation of a Messenger group by the employee, a problem of sexual and psychological harassment had emerged within the team, without mentioning any specific instances of sexual harassment, particularly concerning the employee. The third statement attested that the employee had complained to her about Mr. [D]'s behavior before his disciplinary action, but that afterward, she never heard him complain about their colleague's behavior again.
The ruling concludes that the evidence presented does not establish the existence of at least one specific and detailed incident that would allow for the presumption of sexual harassment against the employee.
In so ruling, when it was clear from its findings that, given the sexually or sexist remarks and behavior repeatedly made or exhibited by Mr. [D] in front of the employee and her colleagues, the latter had been forced to endure a humiliating and degrading work environment, regardless of whether she was directly targeted by these remarks or behaviors, the Court of Appeal violated the aforementioned provisions.
Sources.
Cass. Soc. 28 mai 2026, 24-22.754 publié au bulletin
Cass. Crim. 12 mars 2025, 24-81.6446
L’employeur doit-il nécessairement déclencher une enquête interne pour licencier un salarié pour harcèlement sexuel
Propos connotation sexuelle + pressions sur une salariée pour tenter d’obtenir des faveurs sexuelles = Harcèlement sexuel [2].
Pour lire l’intégralité de la brève, cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous
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