BCGE homophobia: a former executive sentenced in Geneva

A former employee of the Cantonal Bank of Geneva (BCGE) manages to have a former executive of the establishment condemned. According to our information, the latter was found guilty of “Discrimination due to sexual orientation” In a criminal prescription of April 4: “It appears from the hearings led by the police that homophobic remarks have been made (Editor’s note: between 2020 and 2022) By the defendant in the professional context and in the presence of colleagues, both in general and directed against the complainant. ”

In the eyes of the public prosecutor, these declarations, “their regularity, the context, were capable of undermining the dignity of the homosexual community and in particular the complainant”.

“He likes big sleeves”

Heard in 2023, the defendant has always challenged the alleged facts and even said he was a friend for several years with the employee. The frame, which no longer works today for BCGEis also ordered to pay 500 fr. Moral wrong, 500 fr. material damage and 2500 fr. lawyer for the victim who had filed a complaint two years ago.

What are the words involved in human dignity mentioned in this 7 -page decision? In the light of the hearings of banking collaborators, the criminal prescription is of terms like “dirty little fag”, “what fucked”, “here is one who loves big sleeves”, “the Christmas candle you will be able to put it on”.

It is also a question, during a meeting in 2022, of another gravelly remarks where the defendant would have suggested that the victim to “introduce” him, underly sexually, an intern …

Understood, the Brimé employee declares that she said, in vain, to this hierarchical superior that these words were offensive. A month later, the collaborator, in shock, found himself in work stoppages.

“Permanent downfall”

Several senior executives from the bank, including Blaise Goetschin and HR, were heard during this procedure. None says it has been informed of homophobic remarks. It is obviously the testimonies of the more direct collaborators who weighed on the court decision. One of them confirms that the complainant was the subject of “a permanent lowering linked to his sexuality”. Several employees note that these words were “annoying, poorly placed”, improper, heavy, bad on the part of a “uninhibited and contemptuous” framework, “not benevolent”. “Everyone was outraged,” said another collaborator calling these words “vicious under the guise of jokes”.

Note that for this violation of article 261 bis al 4 of the penal code, the defendant receives a financial sentence of 45 days amended at 210 fr. The day. A penalty with a stay of 3 years. The order adds that the procedural costs are borne by the condemned framework (520 fr.), Which also receives an immediate fine of 1890 francs: “The accused’s motivations are a regrettable contempt for the legislation in force. He acted in the professional framework against a subordinate, repeatedly for almost a year and a half. “

“Overwork and mobbing”

The victim, who also complained about overwork and mobbing, also undertook an approach to the Prud’hommes Tribunal.

Defendant’s lawyer, M^e Jean-Marc Carnicé says that his client firmly rejects any accusation of homophobia: “He has always fought all forms of discrimination and had a long-standing professional and friendly relationship with the complainant.”

The public prosecutor heard neither the complainant nor the defendant, delegating the entire investigation to the police, says the penalist: “Only the dependent witnesses suggested by the complainant were heard. The witnesses proposed by the defense were not. The prosecutor never responded to the mail claiming their hearing, nor organized confrontation between the accuser and my client. He thus freed himself from the requirements of a serious instruction. This conviction, rendered in violation of essential rights of defense, will be challenged. ”

BCGE lawyer, M^e Olivia de Weck stresses that “concerning the procedure before the industrial tribunal, the complainant lost at first instance and he appealed the judgment. The cause being kept to judge, we are now awaiting a judgment of the Court of Justice. ”

M^e Ludivine Delaloye, lawyer for the complainant, does not wish to comment.

Did you find an error? Please report it to us.