Court of Cassation clarifies harassment-related legal deadlines

The Court of Cassation in France clarified the difference in time limits for legal actions related to workplace harassment in employment law. The time to file a claim for terminating an employment contract due to moral harassment is five years, while the time to claim compensation for the employer's failure to prevent harassment is two years.

Fashion designer's case sets the context

A fashion designer who began working in 2010 was placed on sick leave in 2017 due to an anxiety-depressive syndrome recognized as an occupational disease. She was later terminated in 2020 and filed a lawsuit in 2021 seeking to overturn her termination and compensation for the employer's failure to prevent harassment.

Appellate court applied a five-year deadline

The appellate court initially ruled that the request for compensation related to the employer's failure to prevent harassment was subject to a five-year time limit, as the employee had knowledge of the employer's shortcomings by 2017 and filed the case in 2021, which was within the deadline.

High Court corrected the time limit

The High Court rejected the five-year time limit, stating that the obligation to prevent harassment is different from the prohibition of harassment. It emphasized that actions related to the performance of the employment contract, such as failure to prevent harassment, prescribe after two years from when the employee became aware of the employer's shortcomings.

Distinction between prevention and prohibition

The Court of Cassation clarified that the employer's obligation to prevent harassment, under Article L1152-4 of the Labor Code, is separate from the prohibition of harassment under Article L1152-1. The prevention obligation includes measures such as training, information, and organizational adjustments to address harassment effectively.

Employer's liability and legal venue

The employer argued that the labor court was not the right venue since the employee was seeking compensation for an occupational disease covered by social security. The Court of Cassation dismissed this, stating that the employee could seek compensation through civil liability in the labor court before social security coverage applied.

Prescription period for criminal cases

The High Court noted that criminal cases against moral harassment have a six-year prescription period, starting from the last act of harassment. This contrasts with the two-year limit for civil compensation claims and the five-year limit for annulment of termination based on harassment.