“It’s pregnancy discrimination”: a Hérault saleswoman denounces dismissal because she was pregnant

Me Soulier, the plaintiff's lawyer, whom the industrial tribunal admitted to being discriminated against. The call is in progress. FREE NOON – Y.P.

A saleswoman won before the Montpellier industrial tribunal against her company ordered to pay her more than 220,000 euros. The employer, who disputes having dismissed her because she had just finished maternity leave, appealed. Decision mid-June.

Was an employee the victim of discrimination, until dismissal, because she was pregnant? Industrial tribunal is seized on appeal of this sensitive case between a young forty-year-old from Montpellier and a large Parisian company, specializing in solutions for radiologists and other doctors.

This former senior sector manager won her first case when the Montpellier industrial tribunal ruled in her favor on almost all counts. In a decision rendered in spring 2022, the dismissal was declared null and void and the discrimination recognized.

"The dismissal is void, occurring in vexatious and humiliating conditions"

"The dismissal is void, occurred under vexatious and humiliating conditions and his employment contract was the subject of unfair execution& quot; writes the jurisdiction severely. She then obtains, with the various compensations, more than 220,000,000 euros.

A very high sum commensurate with the damage, for Me Alexandra Soulier, her lawyer: "She is a brilliant, ambitious woman, marathon runner and excellent saleswoman, she was stunned when she felt the wind change and it fell on her.

In fact, this employee was hired in 2015 and was quickly promoted. Her concern: great difficulty getting pregnant. A first aborted pregnancy forced her to take a six-week work stoppage, then, a year later, a second failed maternity leave led to another stoppage.

Finally, another year passed and the saleswoman was finally able to have a worry-free pregnancy.

Or almost: the employer immediately carried out a control visit following this stoppage which extended into maternity leave.

Then, the complainant returned to work at 70% of working time where she noticed that contracts had been renewed in her absence, causing her to lose bonuses, or although its scope of work has changed.

"She could no longer go to Marseille but had to go to Aveyron"

"She could no longer go to Marseille where she made her best figures, but had to go to Aveyron", deplores Me Soulier.

"We were not satisfied with her services, we had to resolve to fire her", writes management in an email addressed to employees, also praising the departure of two other employees.

"Saying that she was fired because she was pregnant is a sentiment, but it’ is associated with no element of evidence, replies the defense of the imaging company which appealed, the deliberation being scheduled for mid-June.

"The situation has become tense"

Who justifies having ordered a check-up during maternity – "the employer has the right" – and believes that there was a point of no return: "the situation became tense, he didn&t; rsquo;there was no visibility, there was dismissal" indicates the lawyer.

In question, the supposed insubordination of the manager, in particular because she did not use software… whose training had been given during his absence.

Explanations that are far too accurate for Me Soulier who considers that this type of affair is unacceptable at a time, she recalls, of the recent constitutionalization of abortion& ;nbsp;:"They released her as soon as she returned from parental leave, everything put together, they pushed her towards the exit, it’s really discrimination from the pregnancy."

The employee reported harassment, he had started another business during his sick leave

In a ruling rendered at the end of April, the social chamber of the Montpellier Court of Appeal condemned a boilermaker from Hérault, ex-site manager, made redundant and who had nevertheless initiated the procedure against his employer, denouncing the harassment…

The reason? After having suffered an eight-month work stoppage in this Hérault metallurgy company, he did not continue to work. It was not possible for him to resume his activity. in the area. All parties agreed. He was thené licensed for incapacity.

Private detective engaged

But he sued the employer for “moral harassment”, denouncing remarks and denigrations. Who have not been sufficiently supported according to the Court of Appeal. Not only did the jurisdiction overrule it; because he has not proven of harassment, but he was therefore sanctioned. For what reason ? He wasé established that he had another job during his arrest, in the same professional sector, in direct competition…

"It was well recorded" as a self-employed person for the same activity" during his/her shutdown period illness notes the Court.

For his part, the ex boilermaker claims not to have worked in the field. during this period, but the private investigator hired by the company has attested of his presence on a construction site, when he had to stay at home, also coming with a car decorated with the sign of his new company…

"This is an "unfair execution"&amp ;nbsp;of the employment contract according to the social chamber of the court of appeal, which condemned it. à 3500 euros, to the great satisfaction of Me Alexandra Soulier who defended the company: "those who think they are caught are taken"&nbsp ; does she react.

I subscribe to read more