Psychological harassment: a definition focused on the effects

Article L1152-1 of the Labour Code defines psychological harassment as repeated acts whose purpose or effect is to deteriorate working conditions in a way that is likely to:

• infringe upon the employee’s rights and dignity
• adversely affect their physical or mental health
• jeopardise their career prospects.

The legal definition therefore does not refer solely to behaviour directed against a specific individual. What matters above all is the impact of such practices on the employee’s working conditions.

Management practices may constitute managerial psychological harassment

Case law has long recognised that harassment may result from management practices themselves. (Cass. Soc. 10 November 2009, No. 07-45.321)
The Court of Cassation thus acknowledges that management methods implemented by a line manager may constitute psychological harassment if they lead to a deterioration in working conditions for the employees concerned.

These methods can take various forms:

• excessive and constant pressure
• unrealistic targets
• humiliating criticism in public
• constant pitting of employees against one another
• management through fear or destabilisation, etc.

Even if these practices apply to an entire team, they may constitute harassment if their effects are harmful to a specific employee.

When it is the company’s senior management themselves who decide to subject employees to harassing management methods with the aim of putting them off their work and encouraging them to leave, this is referred to as institutional psychological harassment.

Take the example of France Telecom: as it was impossible to dismiss employees due to their special civil service status, they were subjected to widespread and severe bullying to force them to leave of their own accord, which led to numerous suicides.
Senior executives who claimed they had not personally harassed the employees were convicted of institutional psychological harassment, whilst managers who maintained they were merely carrying out instructions were convicted of managerial psychological harassment.

Recent reminder of case law

In a judgement of 10 December 2025 (Cass. Soc. 10 December 2025, 24-15.412), the Court of Cassation reiterated that managerial harassment can be established without the employee having to prove that they were personally targeted.

In this case, several female employees at a wedding dress shop had reported psychological harassment by their two line managers, comprising, in particular, pressure to resign, blackmail, humiliation, disrespect, and insults.

A dismissed employee brought a case before the employment tribunal regarding the psychological harassment which she had never previously complained about. She referred to an internal investigation report which set out the consistent testimonies of the employees, including her own, which confirmed the statements made by her colleagues and referred to incidents concerning her personally as well as the deterioration in her state of health.

The Court of Cassation then reiterated that managerial harassment can be recognised even if the employee is not personally targeted by all the behaviours in question. The employer was therefore ordered to pay the damages claimed by the employee as compensation for this psychological harassment.
In fact, the employee was not seeking to have her dismissal declared null and void on the grounds of psychological harassment but for another reason: an invasion of her privacy.
In this instance, the employer had unlawfully contacted the employee’s GP to obtain information about her sick leave, thereby breaching medical confidentiality. This rendered the dismissal null and void.
The question that arises is whether the employee would have succeeded if she had sought to have her dismissal declared null and void on the grounds of psychological harassment.
The Court of Cassation therefore points out that a finding of psychological harassment does not automatically render the dismissal null and void. It all depends on the link between the harassment and the termination of the employment contract:

• If the dismissal is directly linked to the harassment, it may be declared null and void.
• If the dismissal is based on grounds unrelated to the harassment, for example if a redundancy is recognised as justified, the termination may stand, even if the harassment is recognised. In this case, the employee may still be entitled to claim damages.

A significant responsibility for the employer

The employer has a duty of care towards its employees.
They must therefore prevent situations likely to harm their employees’ physical or mental health, particularly those linked to managerial practices.
If harassment is established, the consequences can be significant:

• an order to pay damages
• a finding of a breach of the duty of care
• the invalidity of a dismissal that took place in this context.

The original article, published by Françoise de Saint Sernin – Avocate en droit du travail on 18/03/2026 and updated on 11/06/2026 has been translated here into English, for the purposes of understanding and learning the related English terminology in this important HR context.