After an accident, a garbage collector denounces the “moral harassment” of the city of Paris and seized justice

A garbage collector from the City of Paris, victim of a service accident in August 2016 by manipulating a bucket, had been placed in a standstill for six months, before being the victim of a second accident in January 2019. Suffering from significant left knee pain, he had been permanently recognized by this function. However, this agent of the City Cleanliness and Water Department had then seized the Paris administrative court to be compensated because of the “degradation of its working conditions” and the “vexatious behavior” of its hierarchy.

His lawyer points to the “failure of his employer”

The man initially demanded 10,000 euros for his “moral damage”: the city of Paris would have “forced him to move to his workplace without providing him with activities”.

But his request had been rejected in May 2023. He therefore appealed the judgment and now claimed 15,000 euros to “take into account the additional and harassment elements which he suffered after the year 2021”.

“By not providing him with the adapted safety orthopedic shoes recommended by (…) Occupational medicine, his employer missed his safety obligation concerning the health of his employees,” argued his lawyer. “The degradation of his physical condition is directly related to the failure of his employer. »»

“However (…) The doctor (…) advocated, not the supply of a pair of orthopedic safety shoes, but suitable safety shoes accompanied by orthopedic soles”, nuances the administrative court of appeal in Paris in a judgment of March 14, 2025 which has just been made public.

She continues: “Mr. X does not dispute having been put into possession of a pair of soles and a pair of safety shoes was given to her a few days after the medical visit – the person who has also confirmed during the fitting, that the model suited him. “The” recommendations “of the occupational doctor were therefore” respected by the City of Paris “.

Nothing proves moral harassment according to the judges

Likewise, if the applicant maintains having been “improperly summoned” by his leader to resume his “work on the dumpster”, he had been put in possession of the appropriate equipment “and” does not bring any element to establish that he would have been deprived of an assignment “. An element, moreover, disputed by the City of Paris, note the Parisian judges.

“Mr. X said that he did not want to move towards administrative type positions, but towards driver’s professions or in the customs service and that he even asked his employer to take charge of training in order to obtain permits and necessary for his retraining project,” notes the administrative court of appeal.

“To suppose that, to refuse to access this request, the hierarchy of Mr. X would have wrongly opposed a reason holding in its way of serving, such an error does not affect the procedure of illegality and is not likely to make the existence of moral harassment presume”, underline the judges.

“Mr. X does not dispute that his employer sent him two files (…) of operational agent responsible for monitoring good collection practices and (…) of agent responsible for the reception, surveillance and security of museums, without any following,” she concludes.

The applicant was therefore dismissed, “no piece” not demonstrating the “alleged degradation” of his working conditions and the “vexatious behavior” of his leaders. Under these conditions, he was therefore ordered to pay 1,000 euros to the City of Paris for its legal costs. He has until May 14, 2025 to seize the Council of State.

MJ-PressPepper

Follow all the news in your favorite cities and media by registering for my news.