Background
La Redoute employed Ms. [J] as a stylist beginning in October 2010. After she developed an anxiety-depressive condition that was recognized as an occupational disease effective July 10, 2017, the company dismissed her in October 2020 for incapacity and inability to find suitable alternative work.
In July 2021, Ms. [J] brought employment-tribunal proceedings alleging workplace psychological harassment, seeking to have her dismissal declared void and claiming compensation arising from the performance and termination of her employment contract. The Douai Court of Appeal awarded damages for La Redoute’s failure to prevent psychological harassment, applying the general five-year limitation period and rejecting the company’s jurisdictional objection.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation upheld the employment tribunal’s jurisdiction over harm suffered before the employee’s condition became covered under the occupational-injury and disease system. It explained that an employee may pursue an ordinary civil-liability claim before the employment tribunal for harm caused by an employer’s failure to prevent psychological harassment when that harm predates social-security coverage. The appellate court had identified earlier harm, including increasing fatigue, persistent stress, and insomnia, as well as La Redoute’s failure to take effective preventive measures during restructuring and workforce reductions.
The Court nevertheless held that a claim based on breach of the employer’s duty to prevent psychological harassment concerns performance of the employment contract and is therefore subject to the two-year limitation period under Labor Code article L. 1471-1. That preventive duty is distinct from the statutory prohibition against psychological harassment itself. Because the Douai court applied a five-year period, the Court partially quashed its judgment as to prescription and the related damages award, and remanded those issues to the Amiens Court of Appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A damages claim for breach of an employer’s duty to prevent psychological harassment carries a two-year limitation period because it concerns performance of the employment contract.
- The prevention-duty claim is legally distinct from a claim based on the underlying acts of psychological harassment and does not inherit the latter claim’s limitation period.
- Employment courts may compensate harm suffered before an occupational condition became covered by social security, even when occupational-disease proceedings are also pending.
Why It Matters
The ruling clarifies that employees and employers must distinguish between liability for harassment and liability for failing to prevent harassment when calculating limitation periods. Characterizing both claims as seeking compensation for the same workplace situation does not justify applying the same filing deadline.
The decision also draws a temporal boundary between employment-court jurisdiction and the occupational-risk compensation system: pre-coverage harm may remain actionable before the employment tribunal, while the statutory occupational-disease regime governs covered harm.