An employee who is a victim of moral harassment (harcèlement moral) can claim damages, separate compensation if the failure to prevent it caused them a different loss, and the nullity of the termination, with, for a dismissal held null and void without reinstatement, at least the last six months' wages. The time limits for bringing a claim differ depending on the claim.
Article L1152-1 of the Labour Code prohibits an employee from being subjected to repeated acts of moral harassment whose purpose or effect is a deterioration in their working conditions liable to infringe their rights and dignity, to impair their physical or mental health or to jeopardise their professional future.
Article L1152-2 also protects the person who has been subjected to, or has refused to be subjected to, such acts, and the person who has, in good faith, reported or testified to such acts: they cannot be subjected to the measures referred to in article L1121-2.
| Claim | Legal basis | What must be established |
|---|---|---|
| Damages for moral harassment | L1152-1 | Factual evidence suggesting harassment (L1154-1) |
| Damages for breach of the duty of prevention | L1152-4 | The employer's breach and the loss it caused; to combine it with the harassment claim, a different loss |
| Nullity of the termination | L1152-3 | A termination made in breach of articles L1152-1 and L1152-2 |
| Indemnity for a null and void dismissal: at least the last six months' wages | L1235-3-1 | A nullity relating to acts of harassment, where the employee does not seek reinstatement or reinstatement is impossible |
Article L1152-4 requires the employer to take all necessary measures to prevent acts of moral harassment.
The Cour de cassation holds that the obligations arising from articles L1152-4 and L1152-1 are separate, so that a breach of each of them, where it causes different losses, may give rise to specific compensation (Cass. soc., 6 June 2012, n° 10-27.694, published in the Bulletin). The condition matters: the second award presupposes a loss different from the one compensated by the first.
On 7 October 2026, the employment chamber held that the duty to prevent occupational risks, which arises from articles L1152-4, L4121-1 and L4121-2, is separate from the prohibition of acts of moral harassment and is not to be confused with it (Cass. soc., 7 October 2026, n° 25-11.362, published in the Bulletin). It drew a consequence for time limits, detailed below.
Any termination of the employment contract made in breach of articles L1152-1 and L1152-2, and any provision or act to the contrary, is null and void (article L1152-3).
The scale in article L1235-3 (the barème Macron, the statutory scale capping unfair-dismissal awards) does not apply where the court finds a nullity relating to acts of moral or sexual harassment. Where the employee does not seek the continuation of their contract or their reinstatement is impossible, the court awards them an indemnity payable by the employer which cannot be lower than the last six months' wages. It is due without prejudice, where applicable, to the statutory, collective-agreement or contractual severance pay (indemnité de licenciement) (article L1235-3-1).
Where the dismissal was authorised by the administrative authority, the Cour de cassation holds that this authorisation, while it does not deprive the employee of the right to seek compensation for the loss resulting from the harassment, no longer allows them to challenge the grounds for or the validity of their dismissal on account of harassment (Cass. soc., 6 June 2012, n° 10-27.694, published in the Bulletin).
Where it is the employee who wants to end the contract because of the harassment, the two routes are compared in our article prise d'acte or résiliation judiciaire, which route for the employee. For the indemnity outside nullity, see how to estimate an indemnity for dismissal without real and serious cause.
Article L1154-1 organises proof in two stages:
The court forms its view after ordering, if need be, any investigative measures it considers useful.
Claims brought under article L1152-1 escape the short time limits of article L1471-1: its third paragraph provides that its first two paragraphs (two years for the performance of the contract, twelve months for its termination) "are not, however, applicable" to claims brought under articles L1132-1, L1152-1 and L1153-1. The same article states that these provisions do not preclude either the shorter limitation periods provided for by the Code, in particular those of articles L1233-67, L1234-20, L1235-7, L1237-14 and L1237-19-8, or the application of the last paragraph of article L1134-5.
| Claim | Time limit | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Compensation for moral harassment | Five years | Article 2224 of the Civil Code; article L1471-1, third paragraph |
| Breach of the duty of prevention | Two years from the day on which the employee knew or should have known the facts enabling them to exercise their right (article L1471-1) | Cass. soc., 7 October 2026, n° 25-11.362, published in the Bulletin |
Three points on when time starts to run:
For the nullity of a dismissal based on harassment, an unpublished judgment of 8 July 2026 (n° 25-11.862) held that the claim is time-barred after five years, quashing a court of appeal decision that had applied the twelve-month time limit.
On prevention, the judgment of 7 October 2026 quashes a court of appeal decision that had applied the five-year time limit on the ground that the two claims had the same purpose: a claim based on breach of the duty of prevention concerns the performance of the employment contract and is time-barred after two years.
Where the employee's state of health has been covered under the occupational risks legislation, the judgment of 7 October 2026 holds, in the light of article L451-1 of the Social Security Code, that the employee may bring a claim before the labour courts (juridiction prud'homale), on the basis of civil liability, to obtain compensation for the loss caused by the employer's breaches of its duty to prevent the acts of moral harassment of which they were a victim before their condition was covered by social security. In the case decided, the court of appeal had noted, before the covered illness, growing fatigue, a state of constant stress and insomnia.
For the next steps in the file, Plato, which is extending into employment law, models termination scenarios, with every amount traceable back to its source: see its employment law specialisation. The final review remains the lawyer's.
Can damages for harassment and for failure to prevent it be combined?
It is possible, if each breach caused a different loss. The Cour de cassation holds that the obligations under articles L1152-1 and L1152-4 are separate (Cass. soc., 6 June 2012, n° 10-27.694, published in the Bulletin).
What indemnity for a dismissal held null and void for moral harassment?
If the employee does not seek reinstatement or it is impossible, at least the last six months' wages, without applying the scale in article L1235-3, and without prejudice, where applicable, to the severance pay (article L1235-3-1).
Who has to prove moral harassment?
The employee presents factual evidence suggesting harassment; the employer must then prove that the acts do not amount to harassment and that its decision is justified by objective factors unrelated to any harassment (article L1154-1).
How long does an employee have to claim compensation for moral harassment?
Five years, on the basis of article 2224 of the Civil Code, from the day on which the employee knew or should have known the facts. This starting point cannot be later than the end of the employment contract.
Is failure to prevent also time-barred after five years?
No. According to a published judgment of 7 October 2026 (n° 25-11.362), a claim based on breach of the duty of prevention concerns the performance of the contract and is time-barred after two years.
Is an employee who testifies to harassment protected?
Yes. Article L1152-2 protects the person who has, in good faith, reported or testified to such acts, and article L1152-3 renders null and void any termination made in breach of that protection.