A firefighter from Auray and Lorient asked the Rennes administrative court, this Friday, June 28, 2024, to condemn the Morbihan departmental fire and rescue service for the “sexual and moral harassment” that she suffered between 2006 and 2012.
Firefighter “with an impressive journey” According to the public prosecutor, Géraldine received text messages from her superior in which he tried to seduce her, offering her massages in particular. After rejecting him, she suffered “daily humiliations” between 2006 and 2012. For example, she received calls at 11:30 p.m. to be accused of “for not taking out the trash.”
Géraldine ended up falling into “major depression” with “a significant generalized anxiety disorder” et “post-traumatic stress disorder”.
During the hearing before the Rennes administrative court, this June 28, 2024, the public rapporteur proposed to hold the Departmental Fire and Rescue Service (SDIS) of Morbihan responsible. However, “through no fault of his own.” The fact that the hierarchical superior took advantage of his supervisory position to take revenge, according to her, remains “a hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to hold the SDIS liable for negligence” the public rapporteur clarified.
The magistrate considered that the complainant can only obtain compensation for “his bodily injury” – the firefighter having “compensated with food and gained 40 kilos”. In this respect, the public rapporteur estimates the compensation at 30,000 euros to which is added 2,500 euros for “the impact on his image”.
Géraldine’s lawyer recalled that her client haswas asked in January 2010 to “change team”. Placed “retired due to disability” in 2019, the fire brigade had however “cited names of colleagues”, during the administrative investigation and product “a detailed and detailed account” of what happened. In addition, the SDIS has “crossed out three sentences” of this same administrative investigation, which is “really inconvenient since no security problem can be invoked” she mentioned.
The SDIS lawyer responded by saying that she was perfectly able to “produce the unredacted document”. She lamented “the untruths” of the applicant and also noted that a “absolutely total prescription” applies in matters of “psychological harm”. “The amounts withheld are still very high” she concluded, while “half” of the damage is “for half” of a “pre-existing pathology”, according to her.
The court, which has reserved its decision, will rule within a fortnight.
