MORAL HARASSMENT

Harassment

Supreme Court
Labour Chamber

Public hearing on November 30, 2004 Rejection


Appeal No.: 03-41757
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. SARGOS

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

The Court of Cassation, SOCIAL, made the following ruling:

On the sole ground, taken in its three branches:

Whereas, November 27, 2000, Miss X. .. then aged 19, was hired as an employee of Company X commerce. following qualification contract for a period of 22 months related to a BTS action commercial that March 13, 2001, Miss X. .. and manager of the company, MY .. signed a private agreement under which it was terminated by mutual agreement this contract in May 2001, Miss X. .. seized the industrial tribunal a request to the nullity of the act in respect of acts of harassment and abuse she claimed to have suffered and the award of damages, that the judgment (Montpellier, January 7, 2003) decided that the private agreement was void because of violence against Miss X. .. had received from Y. .. and awarded him damages;

Whereas the company claims that the Court of Appeal have ruled well and cites complaints alleging erroneous assessment of evidence and facts of violence, so would have violated Articles L. 122-14-4 of the Labour Code and 1112 Civil Code;

But whereas the Court of Appeal found, without breaching the rules on the evidence that Y. .., notwithstanding the nature of the qualification contract within the scope of a BTS, required to Miss X. .. to work full time and harassed in various ways, including asking him to massage a sexual nature and that it had resulted in psychological problems, fears and anxiety for the latter, these findings characterize acts of violence within the meaning of section 1112 of the Civil Code, it is proper for the Court of Appeal set aside the deed signed under the influence of such violence and awarded damages to Miss X. .. And that the means can not be allowed;

And whereas the present appeal abusive;

FOR THESE REASONS:

Dismiss the appeal;

Company X condemns the expense;

Having regard to Article 628 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, Company X condemned to pay a civil fine of 3,000 euros to the Revenue;

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on 30 November two thousand and four.



Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Montpellier (Social Chamber) 2003-01-07

 
Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 15.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: