Former Publicis Employee Awarded Half a Million Euros in Discrimination Lawsuit

The decision is extremely rare, confirms Xavier Sauvignet, the lawyer for this former employee of Publicis, who did not wish to speak further. In a judgment handed down on June 28, the Versailles Court of Appeal considers that the dismissal of this executive is indeed following discrimination because of her sex and her successive pregnancies. The group, one of the world leaders in communication and advertising, is ordered to pay him half a million euros in compensation.

This employee will have spent nearly thirty years at Publicis. Hired in 1992, she rose through the ranks to become consulting director. Her situation at work began to deteriorate when she became pregnant for the second time, at the age of 46. When she returned from maternity leave, she was withdrawn from her mission with Renault, a very important client. Two years later, as she prepares to leave for her third pregnancy, this time she loses management of the Nissan account.

A dismissed employee whose health is deteriorating

“The employer does not provide sufficient explanations to justify that the employee was dismissed”, concludes the Court of Appeal of Versailles. The discrimination is also seen on his payslip. The employee was not paid 100% during the first two months of her leave for her last pregnancy and did not benefit from the catch-up salary provided for by law after maternity leave.

Justice also criticizes Publicis for not not having taken into account the alerts launched on his work overloadI. In 2016, when she had health problems, she wrote to her superior that she “fears the return”that it will not hold “not long” if it starts again “at the usual pace”. A year later, she is arrested and will not return to work. She suffers from a “major depressive syndrome” according to his psychiatrist. At 57, she was fired for professional incapacity. Justice considers that his incapacity is linked to “the deterioration of his working conditions, attributable to the employer” and concludes that the dismissal is null and void.