France (EN) 
US 
Canada 
Mexico 
Germany 
UK 
An employee claimed to be a victim of psychological harassment and accused the employer of breaching its duty of care. In particular, he argued that the internal investigation conducted following his complaints was insufficient, as it had been limited to interviews conducted by the group’s legal director with the two employees concerned.
The Court of Appeal first dismissed the existence of the alleged psychological harassment, after finding that the facts cited by the employee, although they might suggest harassment, were justified by objective factors unrelated to any harassment.
Regarding the duty of care, the Court of Cassation upheld the reasoning of the trial court judges. It noted that the employee based his claim for compensation solely on the alleged inadequacy of the internal investigation conducted following his report. However, the employer had indeed responded to the employee’s complaints by conducting an internal investigation. Under these circumstances, and since psychological harassment had not been established, the Court of Appeal could conclude that the employer had not breached its duty of care.
The ruling thus confirms that in the event of a report regarding acts of psychological harassment, an employer who responds by conducting an internal investigation may, depending on the circumstances, demonstrate that they have fulfilled their duty of care, particularly when the alleged acts of harassment are ultimately not established and the employee does not identify any breach other than the alleged inadequacy of that investigation.
This approach reflects a pragmatic view of internal investigations. With regard to the duty of care, the Court of Cassation has already held that the absence of an internal investigation is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish a breach by the employer when the employer can demonstrate that it responded to the reports made, notably through detailed written responses (Cass. soc., June 12, 2024, No. 23-13.975). It also aligns with the approach adopted, in terms of the burden of proof, in the published judgment of January 14, 2026, according to which no provision of the Labor Code requires the employer to conduct an internal investigation in the event of a report of sexual harassment. The absence of an investigation cannot, therefore, in and of itself, deprive the evidence produced by the employer in support of a disciplinary dismissal of its probative value (Cass. soc., Jan. 14, 2026, No. 24-19.544). The internal investigation thus remains a useful tool for objectively addressing an allegation and safeguarding the employer’s position. However, it is neither a condition for the validity of disciplinary evidence nor a systematic prerequisite for demonstrating compliance with the duty of care.
