sexual harassment

The courts dealing with the substance of a case had, until now, a sovereign capacity to appreciate a situation of moral harassing. In other words, the Court of appeal did not control the appreciation of the judges on the pieces of evidence which the parties brought. Today, the High jurisdiction operates a jurisprudential reversal while taking care more of the control of the judges. In the last judgments delivered on the matter, the social room of the Court of appeal distributes the burden of proof of the facts constitutive of harassing between the employee and the employer. It thus belongs to the employee to establish the materiality of the facts that it calls upon. The judges, them, apprehend the whole of these facts and look at if they make it possible to suppose the existence of harassing. In this case, it is allocated to the employer to show on the contrary that these facts do not characterize a situation of moral harassing.

In a stop of June 26th, 2006, the social Room of the Court of appeal decided that engaged his responsibility for the acts of moral harassing perpetrated by one for his subordinates on the employees. is held towards his employees dune obligation of security of result as regards protection of the health and the security of the workers in , in particular as regards moral harassing, and that of fault of its share cannot of its responsibility.  

According to a decision of the court of appeal of November 30th, the negotiated rupture of a work contract is null when the employee concluded it under the influence from acts from harassing and violence.