Sexual harassment is defined by its effects, not by the identity of its target : the Labour Code prohibits repeated sexual or sexist comments or conduct that undermine a person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment, and it does not require the victim to have been personally singled out. The Court of Cassation has now aligned employment law with the position of its criminal division on so-called ‘ambient’sexual harassment.
In this case, an employee in a fast-food outlet had reported sexual harassment by her superior, which had stopped after management intervened and led to the manager’s suspension for eight days. She then relied on a separate, ‘ambient’harassment, established by witness statements describing sexually suggestive remarks made by the same superior in front of her but aimed at her colleagues. Dismissed for gross misconduct, she sought to have her dismissal declared void. The Court of Appeal rejected her claim, finding that she had not established a single precise fact suggesting harassment directed at her personally.
The Court of Cassation quashed that decision. Sexual or sexist comments or conduct addressed to, or expressedin front of, several employees are capable of being endured by each of them ; following the same reasoning as its criminal division (Cass. crim., 12 March 2025, no. 24-81.644), the Court held that the employee had been made to endure a humiliating and degrading working environment because of the repeated remarks made in her presence, meaning the harassment was established even though she was not the direct target.
