Court Rulings on Employment Law and Discrimination Cases

Extract

[...] is appealing to the cassation court. The question posed to the Court of Cassation is of whether the dismissal of an employee for having transmitted bibles to minors falls within a sanction based on proselytizing behavior and not on religious convictions, and whether the dismissal constitutes an prohibited discrimination. The Court of Cassation quashes and annuls the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court recalls that a reason drawn from the employee's personal life cannot justify a dismissal, unless the behavior constitutes a breach of a contractual obligation. [...]

[...] Cuvelier's lawyer. Cuvelier indicating to her that she, after having resigned and found a job in another company, claims the payment of the bonus she did not benefit from thus that a sum as compensation for the damage she suffered due to the fact that discrimination of which she estimates to have been a victim. Madame Cuvelier's lawyer proposes the conclusion of a transaction, failing which he will take action against the Fibromatic company. Madame Dudéfin also learns that a group Facebook a been formed by employees of the Reims establishment and that they denounce sexual harassment of which they would be victims from their hierarchical superior, without naming him. [...]

[...] Since 2009 (change of first name) the very notion of direct discrimination does not imply a comparison with other employees. Unlike indirect discrimination. DOC : Cass. soc November 2019, n° 18-15.682, published Hired as an accountant, a female employee took parental leave from July to April Upon her return, she was assigned to administrative and secretarial tasks, unrelated to her previous position, which was held during her absence. Believing that her job and qualifications had not been respected, she filed a complaint with the labor court for moral harassment and pregnancy-related discrimination, seeking damages. [...]

[...] Thecourt of appeal, has ruled that there was no need for a preliminary ruling, considering that the elements produced did not allow establishing, in a manifest manner, that the employee's dismissal constituted a retaliatory measure. The applicant has formed aappeal in cassation. Thethe applicant in the appeal, employee, argued that her dismissal constituted ameasure of retaliation consecutive to thereporting of an ethical alert, in violation of theArticles L.1132-3-3 and L.1132-4 of the Labour Code, in their previous drafting prior to the law of 21 March 2022, as well as theLaw No. 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 relating to transparency and the fight against corruption. [...]

[...] the employee has the right to the benefit, but the repair of his prejudice due to his discrimination if he proves the existence of the prejudice itself. Mention whether these are objective elements unrelated to any discrimination. Seniority is an objective non-discriminatory criterion, which can justify the non-payment of the bonus. In the statement, it is implied that the bonus is paid based on the results, the employee had the same results as the others, so the same payment as the others, therefore. [...]