Extract
[...] As a result, the facts attributed to the club characterize moral harassment. Charles has suffered humiliating and unjustified treatment, contrary to the fundamental principles of labor law. III. Discrimination and Attack on Human Dignity Discrimination based on physical appearance is prohibited by several legal texts. Article 225-1 of the Criminal Code and Article 1 of the Constitution guarantee equality among individuals and prohibit distinctions based on non-objective criteria, such as appearance. This principle is also affirmed by Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 10 of the TFEU, which impose the absence of unjustified discrimination. [...]
[...] He was also banned from parking, removed from the official photo, and deprived of his jersey, which was given to another player. These behaviors, repeated over time, isolated Charles from the team. They led to a clear degradation of his working conditions and harmed his dignity. The case law (Agen, ch. Soc July 2021, n°20/00842) recognizes that social exclusion measures can constitute moral harassment. Here, the club's actions show a deliberate intention to marginalize Charles. These actions go far beyond acceptable disciplinary measures and fit into a dynamic of harassment. [...]
[...] Conclusion In conclusion, the elements presented demonstrate that Charles's dismissal for serious misconduct is unfounded, the facts alleged not meeting the required criteria of gravity as required by law and jurisprudence. Furthermore, the repeated acts of social exclusion of which he has been a victim characterize a proven moral harassment. Finally, the dismissal is based on a discrimination founded on his physical appearance, in violation of the fundamental principles of non-discrimination and equality inscribed in French and European law. These facts, contrary to human dignity and the employer's obligations, justify that the dismissal be annulled and that Charles receive compensation for the harm suffered. [...]
[...] According to Article L1232-1 of the Labor Code and constant case law (Cass. Soc February 2019, n°17-18912), serious misconduct is characterized by shortcomings that make it impossible to continue the contractual relationship, even during the notice period. These shortcomings must be serious, proven, and have a direct impact. In this case, the club accuses Charles of weight gain and a supposed decline in his athletic abilities. However, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this decline, if it exists, made it impossible to execute his contractual obligations. [...]
[...] Charles' weight gain, although undesirable, is more a matter of personal considerations than a serious misconduct. In the absence of evidence establishing a direct and insurmountable impact on the contractual relationship, the facts complained of do not meet the required criteria. The dismissal for serious misconduct therefore appears unfounded and disproportionate. II. The existence of moral harassment Moral harassment is defined by Article L1152-1 of the Labour Code. It is characterized by repeated acts that degrade working conditions and harm the dignity, health, or professional future of the employee. [...]
