At the Paris Court of Appeal,
Outside the courtroom, cameras crowd around a lawyer. In the historic courthouse in Paris, media attention is focused on a man with abundant judicial news: Eric Zemmour. Facing this chamber where the far-right presidential candidate must be tried on appeal for contesting crimes against humanity, another trial took place Thursday in greater discretion. The facts that are discussed there, however, echo a significant social phenomenon: sexual harassment at work. According to figures from the Ministry of Equality between Women and Men, one in five women would be confronted with it during her professional life.
Inside the room, two anonymous people, a man and a woman, are seated in the first row, separated by the central bay. He is a customs inspector, she is chief of staff at the Ministry of Justice. For six years, the two have been opposing each other in a procedure “with many gray areas”, deemed “complex” by the magistrate of the Court of Appeal responsible for presiding over the hearing on January 20. Prosecuted for sexual harassment and moral harassment, Jean-Michel M. was released in 2020 for these facts. “But the public prosecutor did not hear it that way, nor did the civil party, who both appealed”, explains the president in the preamble.
“I want a good blowjob”
To understand what is alleged against this father who entered customs in the early 1990s, we must go back to 2013, a long way from the #MeToo surge. At the time, this profession had less than
38% of women in its workforce. Aurélie G., multilingual editor in a section attached to the general management is one of them. A graduate of Sciences Po, this 30-year-old is in charge of a technical portfolio in connection with Olaf, the European Anti-Fraud Office. Jean-Michel M. has just left a position based in London to take over as head of Aurélie’s department.
Pipe smoker for decades, the man has a habit of inviting his colleagues to his tobacco breaks. The puns fuse then: “I want a good pipe”, “the pipe makes me feel good”, quotes the president. Called to the bar, the fifties in a dark suit insists on the “context”: “When I say, this object in hand, I want a good blowjob, I mean that I need my break. It all started in a harmless way, good words were born around that (…). Seeing the rest of the team laughing with unfeigned amusement, I relaunched (…). But if I had the feeling that there was the slightest problem, I would have immediately stopped”. Aurélie, however, claims to have been “very clear”, from October 2013, on the discomfort caused by these remarks, which her superior formally denies.
“Patience and kindness”
In her complaint filed after her final departure from customs in 2016, the young woman also mentions comments about her outfit, jokes about the glasses she occasionally wore. Elements denied en bloc at the hearing by the defendant. “The way she dressed, it is totally indifferent to me (…). By virtue of what can I pass judgment on the subject? I forbid myself this kind of thing, ”he assures, specifying that he never noticed his subordinate’s sight problems.
Another element pointed out by the court, the presence in his office of “engravings and posters of a sexual nature”. According to Jean-Michel M., these were simple caricature postcards, a parting “gift” from his colleagues when he was in London. Aurélie describes for her part a poster of a woman with naked and visible breasts. “We saw her carrying two suitcases, her breasts were sticking out and customs officers were offering to help her. We can all have the decor we want in our office, but there, it was not neutral, ”she believes.
At the same time, the atmosphere within the service is tense. “When I arrived in September 2013, I found a dormant section,” remembers Jean-Michel M. “My two managers told me: we have to send, there. You will find that some have more difficulty than others. Very clearly, I am being asked for results and being pointed at by team members. A month after his arrival, the five members of his team feel a sense of unease. “Is it a reality, isn’t it? asks the president. “Yes, I never denied that I had made mistakes. But the least concerned by all that was Aurélie G., “says the defendant, adding that he showed” patience and kindness “with regard to the civil party.
Word against word
As is often the case in harassment cases, the word of one is opposed to that of the other. “We find in the investigation split testimonies and others more nuanced with a split that takes place within the service”, analyzes the president. Aurélie G., supported by two of her colleagues, described a “psychological demolition enterprise” which would have taken place behind closed doors in the office of Jean-Michel M. “I would like to have everything recorded to show that everything is true, but alas I did not do it”, regretted the young woman at the helm. If the defendant admitted having favored “one-on-one” meetings with members of his service and having spent “much more time” with Aurélie G., it was to remedy the “difficulties” encountered with his files. he explained, now having had no demeaning behavior or remarks towards him.
In January 2014, a service meeting will however record the reattribution of part of the portfolio managed so far by the young woman. A few weeks later, Aurélie cracks and is placed on sick leave for six months. “When you are told every day that you suck, that my grandmother would be ashamed of me, when you are made to feel guilty without giving you an explanation, yes, we crack,” she confides, her voice broken by emotion. In the spring of that same year, 2014, she alerted the unions and sent a letter to her colleagues to explain the reasons for her absence. An administrative investigation was finally launched a year after the arrival of his new manager, who concluded that there were “inappropriate” remarks and “proven managerial difficulties”.
Nine months suspended prison sentence required
It now remains for the court to determine whether the facts are indeed characterized. A complex task summed up as follows by the president: “We have to judge whether Aurélie G. has internalized events, forced the line and interpreted a certain number of episodes by disguising them (…) or if we have there a person who is found most of the time face to face with the defendant, without direct witnesses to these episodes. “For the prosecution, the bundle of clues found during the investigation must be retained against Jean-Michel M. A suspended sentence of nine months in prison was thus requested, accompanied by a fine of 15,000 euros. The decision will be made on February 25.