France Telecom case: decryption

France Telecom case: a first in the recognition of institutional psychological harassment

On December 20, 2019, the verdict of the France Telecom trial was in, after several months of hearing.
Even though only seven former leaders were officially prosecuted, it was the entire human resources policy implemented between 2007 and 2010 that was at the heart of the debate.

This trial, which has become a symbol of suffering at work, marks a major turning point in the way institutional harassment is taken into account by justice.

A look back at the facts: the origins of the scandal

The events judged are linked to the “Next” and “Act” plans, conducted between 2007 and 2010.
These strategic transformations aimed at reorganizing the company over three years and included: 22,000 departures and 10,000 forced mobilities.

The pressure to reach these goals quickly left its mark. Starting in 2008, suicides and suicide attempts by employees multiplied, attracting the attention of the media and public opinion.

The statements of Didier Lombard, CEO at the time, were also shocking. In 2006, he mentions the departures that will happen.” Through the window or through the door ” and, in 2009, spoke of a” Suicide mode ” to minimize the social crisis.

The judicial turning point came in July 2009, with the letter left by Michel Deparis before he committed suicide.
In it, he describes a “permanent emergency”, a “total disorganization” and a “management through terror”.
This letter, followed by numerous complaints, triggered a damning report from the labour inspectorate.

Between 2008 and 2009, 35 employees commit suicide, and many others fall into serious depressions.

The highlights of the trial

The trial takes place from May 6 to July 11, 2019.
Seven former leaders, including Didier Lombard, are being tried for moral harassment.

The court upholds 39 victims :

• 19 suicides,
• 12 suicide attempts,
• 8 severe depressions.

The civil parties describe managerial methods intended to push employees out.
The testimonies evoke forced changes, imposed mobility, decreases in remuneration and a climate of constant pressure.

The civil status of many employees, which protected them from dismissal, reinforced strategies of destabilization and psychological wear and tear.

The occupational physician Monique Fraysse-Guiglini provides a striking testimony.
As early as 2007, she observed the increase in spontaneous consultations, the appearance of anxio-depressive syndromes and the development of stress-related addictions.

Despite expressions of “deep sorrow”, Didier Lombard remains convinced that he “saved the company”, believing that the transformations were inevitable given the economic context.

The verdict: a historic condemnation

On December 20, 2019, the Paris Criminal Court delivered an unprecedented verdict.

He considers that the practices aimed at reaching 22,000 departures were Illegal And that a concerted plan to worsen working conditions had been put in place.
This plan created a Anxiogenic climate, intended to speed up departures.

The court recalls that a transformation cannot take place at the expense of the pace of adaptation of employees.

The sentences handed down:

• Didier Lombard, Louis-Pierre Wenès and Olivier Barberot :
  1 year in prison including 8 months suspended + €15,000 fine.
• France Telecom (now Orange) :
  €75,000 fine.
• The four other defendants: convicted for complicity in moral harassment.

Didier Lombard appealed, while Orange chose not to challenge the decision.

An important point in the judgment:
Les 130,000 employees present between 2007 and 2008 can seek compensation without having to prove individual harm.
The amount could reach 1 billion euros, according to the number of requests.

What should we take away from this decision?

The prosecutor's office had requested the maximum sentence, and the court followed that direction.

Even if the fines remain modest in the face of the human impact, this conviction constitutes a A turning point in French criminal law.
It introduces into case law the concept of institutional bullying, recognizing that a managerial policy can, in itself, cause serious damage.

It's the First time that leaders were condemned not for individual actions, but for a management strategy based on systemic pressure.

For the civil parties, despite the appeal, this verdict marks an important victory.
It recognizes the suffering of the victims and paves the way for an indispensable reflection on the policies of prevention of psychological harassment on a large scale.