In a ruling dated December 11, 2024, the French Supreme Court confirmed that sexually suggestive remarks made by an employee towards a colleague constitute a breach of such severity that it makes the employee’s continued presence in the company impossible, thereby justifying dismissal for gross misconduct.
In this case, an employee made particularly inappropriate remarks to one of his colleagues. These included repeated sexually suggestive comments about her appearance, skin, makeup, clothing, and her relationship with her partner, conveyed through remarks, inuendos, or inappropriate and repetitive compliments.
The Court of Appeal had acknowledged that the employee’s remarks constituted a real and serious cause for dismissal but did not qualify them as gross misconduct. It also considered that the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate a specific intent to obtain a sexual act or to exert pressure akin to harassment, thus dismissing the qualification of sexual or moral harassment.
The company, however, believed that these remarks, akin to sexual harassment, justified dismissal for gross misconduct and thus appealed to the Supreme Court.
Firstly, the Court recalled the definition of sexual harassment as outlined in Article L. 1153-1 of the Labor Code, stating that no employee should be subjected to:
- Sexual harassment, constituted by repeated sexually suggestive remarks or behaviors that either undermine their dignity due to their degrading or humiliating nature or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive situation against them.
- Acts akin to sexual harassment, consisting of any form of serious pressure (even if not repeated), exerted with the real or apparent aim of obtaining a sexual act, whether sought for the benefit of the perpetrator or a third party.
The Court considered that the remarks made by the employee were particularly inappropriate, humiliating, sexist, and degrading, infringing upon the dignity of the person who was the target of these remarks. Consequently, it overturned the appellate decision, ruling that these remarks constituted sexual harassment amounting to gross misconduct, making it impossible for the employee to remain in the company.