OD FLASH | Internal investigation and freedom of evidence in harassment cases

Social Chamber, Jan. 14, 2026, No. 24-19.544

An employee dismissed for serious misconduct on the basis of allegations of sexual harassment claimed that, by failing to conduct an internal investigation, the employer had not established the facts on which the termination of his employment contract was based.

The Fort-de-France Court of Appeal upheld the employee’s claims, ruling that the employer had failed to provide the necessary evidence, as it had simply accepted the statements received without conducting an internal investigation, even though other evidence had been produced (hearings, statements, criminal complaint).

The Court of Cassation overturned the appeal ruling. It pointed out that, in accordance with the principle of freedom of evidence in labor court cases, no provision of the Labor Code requires employers to conduct a preliminary internal investigation in cases of reported sexual harassment. It is therefore up to the trial judges to assess the value and scope of all the evidence produced (hearings, statements, medical documents, complaints, etc.), without being able to dismiss its probative value solely on the grounds that no internal investigation was conducted.

The High Court thus specifies that an internal investigation is not a condition for the validity of disciplinary evidence: it is one piece of evidence among others, the value of which must be assessed independently and whose absence cannot, on its own, render the other evidence ineffective.

This solution echoes previous solutions, in particular those of June 18, 2025 (Cass. soc., No. 23-19.022, published in the Bulletin) and June 12, 2024 (Cass, soc. no. 23-13.975), in which the Court of Cassation had already held that the investigation was not mandatory and that the report drawn up was one piece of evidence among many others submitted to the sovereign assessment of the trial judges. In practice, employers can therefore establish the materiality of a wrongful act by means of specific and detailed testimony, corroborated by statements and other supporting evidence, without the conduct of an internal investigation being a mandatory prerequisite. However, the Court of Cassation in no way questions the value of the investigation, which remains a relevant evidentiary tool for securing decision-making.