Can sexist language constitute mood harassment?

An employee is dismissed by her employer. She challenged her dismissal in court and said she had been the victim of mood-provoking sexual harassment in open space.

The Conseil de prud'hommes de Paris rejects the employee's application and does not acknowledge the existence of harassment. The employee appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Labor Court and condemned the employer. The internal investigation on which the employer relies to challenge the existence of harassment is flawed. Moreover, the employer did not call the employees implicated in the incident to order. Thus, it has failed to fulfill its obligation of safety and prevention.

The court therefore acknowledges that the employee was subjected to mood harassment even though she was not directly targeted by the acts. This mood harassment is characterized by the existence of sexist remarks and actions of a sexist and sexual nature that took place in an environment (an open space) from which she could not detach herself.

The employer must therefore compensate the employee for her loss.