What is the admissibility of an internal investigation by the employer?

Mr A. contested his dismissal and appealed to the Labor Court, which rejected his application. He's taking the case to the Court of Appeal. He alleges bias and inadequacy of the internal investigation in support of which the employer dismissed him.

The Court of Appeal found in favor of the applicant and ordered the employer to pay him damages. It notes that the employer does not produce the entire survey. Only 5 reports of interviews out of 14 carried out appear, some are truncated or anonymous and the alleged facts are not corroborated by any other element.

It considers that the investigation, the conclusions of which are not very detailed, is produced in a very incomplete and consequently non-probative manner, in so far as the missing reports could have been favorable to Mr A. or even invalidate the facts complained of.

It considers that the facts imputed to Mr A. are not established and that there is a doubt which should benefit it. She declares her dismissal to be without real and serious cause.

The employer decides to go to the Court of Cassation. In his view, the evidence is free in labor court matters and he considers that the internal investigation report is sufficient to demonstrate the facts alleged against Mr A. and to justify his dismissal for misconduct.

He also claims that by maintaining anonymity or by not producing the testimony of employees as they had wished, he had, as employer, respected their private and personal life as well as his obligation of safety and protection of their physical or mental health.

How is the relevance of an internal investigation by the employer assessed?

Public Service replies:

The Court of Cassation, in its decision of 18 June 2025, confirms the reasoning of the Court of Appeal and dismisses the appeal brought by the business.

She recalled that, in the event of dismissal for sexual or psychological harassment or gender-based or sexually motivated acts, it is for the trial judges to assess the probative value of an internal investigation produced by the employer, taking into account any other evidence submitted by the parties.

The Court of Appeal made such an assessment. It considered that as the evidence adduced was not sufficient to establish the facts alleged against Mr A., the doubt should benefit him.

In particular, the employer claimed that it was impossible to disclose all the evidence because of the employees’ desire to preserve their anonymity. However, he ‘did not explain how [he] could not have anonymized those elements’ before adding them to the file.

The Court of Cassation thus confirms the dismissal without real and serious cause of Mr. A. and the employer's order to pay him damages.