Abstract. Through an analysis of the main offenses under the Labor Code and the Criminal Code, Allison BENICHOU CORCHIA highlights situations in which an employer’s violations go beyond the scope of labor law to give rise to criminal liability. Occupational health and safety, illegal employment, offense of obstruction, and workplace harassment: these are all behaviors that may expose the company, its executives, or its agents to severe criminal penalties, within a constantly evolving legal landscape.
Keywords. Employer’s criminal liability, criminal labor law, workplace safety, illegal employment, workplace harassment.
Introduction
The Court of Cassation recently reaffirmed its new interpretation of the non bis in idem principle, which prohibits convicting a person twice for the same acts. It notes that it is possible to prosecute, concurrently for identical acts, offenses under the Labor Code and those under the Criminal Code when they occur concurrently (Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, January 23, 2024, No. 23-81.091), such that concurrent prosecution is permitted unless (1) the characterization of the elements constituting one of the offenses precludes that of the other, (2) one of the classifications corresponds to an element or an aggravating circumstance of the other, or (3) one of the classifications, known as a special classification, criminalizes a specific form of the reprehensible act already punishable under the general offense.
In this article, Allison BENICHOU CORCHIA, Partner in the labor law department at d&a partners, highlights situations in which an employer’s practices may go beyond the scope of labor law and fall within the realm of criminal offenses.
The article will address, in turn, offenses related to occupational health and safety (I), illegal employment (II), the offense of obstruction (III), as well as recent developments in case law regarding harassment (IV).
I/ Occupational health and safety: when criminal law comes into play
The violations set forth in the Labor Code in this area are primarily intended to be preventive, but they can result in criminal liability for the employer, even in the absence of an accident.
Article L.4741-1 of the Labor Code establishes a general liability and provides for a civil fine of €10,000.
This includes, in particular, obligations regarding the provision of information and training to workers, as well as obligations related to protective equipment and measures.
When the violation involves the life or physical integrity of an employee, the Criminal Code applies: the main offenses are involuntary manslaughter, involuntary assault, and endangering the life of another person.
Article 221-6 punishes causing the death of another person “through clumsiness, imprudence, inattention, or negligence” with up to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of €45,000. The penalty is increased in cases of “a manifestly deliberate violation of a specific duty of care or safety imposed by law or regulation”.
Recent events tragically illustrate these issues. On July 26, 2023, a young worker died while cleaning a machine that had been shut down, which then restarted. A few months earlier, another employee had been the victim of the same accident on the same machine.
The company was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter as a legal entity and fined €225,000, with the requirement to display the judgment for 2 months (fines for legal entities can indeed be up to five times higher than those imposed on individuals).
These tragedies serve as a reminder that safety violations are never merely theoretical. According to the National Health Insurance, 810 people died on the job in 2023. The 2024 report from the Labor Inspectorate highlights that in 55% of companies inspected following a workplace accident, risks are not reassessed or are poorly reassessed, and that in half of all cases, no action is taken.
II/ llegal Employment: a criminal risk that is often underestimated
Article L.8211-1 of the Labor Code lists 6 forms of illegal employment, including undeclared work and the employment of a foreign national without a work permit.
Hidden employment through the concealment of salaried employment occurs when an employer intentionally evades certain legal obligations, particularly by failing to report wages and social security contributions to the relevant authorities (Article L.8221‑5).
Many employers underestimate the risks associated with failing to report overtime, which must, however, be included on the pay stub (up to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros— Article L.8224‑1). Furthermore, when an employer intentionally reports a number of hours lower than those actually worked, the employee is entitled, in the event of termination of the contract, to a lump-sum compensation equal to 6 months’ salary (Article L.8223‑1).
III/ Offense of obstruction: when hindering social dialogue becomes a criminal offense
The offense of obstruction occurs when there is a deliberate attempt to undermine the establishment or proper functioning of employee representative bodies (CSE).
The employer must organize CSE elections once the company has at least 11 employees for 12 consecutive months (Article L.2311-2 of the Labor Code). It is common, particularly in small businesses, for the business owner to fail to meet this obligation. This failure exposes the offender to 1 year of imprisonment and a fine of €7,500 (Article L.2317-1). The employer may also be ordered to pay damages to employees without the employees having to prove the existence of harm (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, June 28, 2023, No. 22-11.699).
In the event of collective layoffs for economic reasons, consultation with the CSE is mandatory. Failure to do so exposes the employer to a fine of €3,750 (Article L.1238-2).
The legislature also punishes any obstruction of the exercise of trade union rights with 1 year of imprisonment and a fine of €3,750 (Article L.2146-1).
IV/ Harassment in the workplace: what recent rulings mean
Recent case law reflects a broadening of the definition of harassment, while also relaxing certain obligations imposed on employers.
Sexual harassment is defined by Article 222-33 of the Criminal Code and Article L.1153-1 of the Labor Code as any serious pressure, even if not repeated, exerted with the actual or apparent intent of obtaining a sexual act.
Under labor law, it is not necessary to prove that the harasser was aware of harassing the victim, unlike under criminal law, which requires the presence of a legal element, a material element, and an intentional element: the perpetrator must therefore have had the intent to commit the acts, which are punishable by 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of €30,000.
The employer is required to take “all necessary measures to prevent, stop, and punish acts of sexual harassment” (Article L.1153-5 of the Labor Code). The employer is liable for acts of harassment committed by their employees, unless they can demonstrate that they took all necessary preventive measures (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, June 1, 2016, No. 14-19.702).
With regard to workplace bullying, which is considered a form of workplace violence, Article 222-33-2 of the Criminal Code defines it as repeated acts intended to, or having the effect of, degrading working conditions in a manner likely to infringe upon the victim’s rights and dignity, impair their physical or mental health, or jeopardize their professional future (Article L.1152-1 of the Labor Code).
The Court of Cassation recently affirmed that management practices that degrade an employee’s working conditions and are likely to impair their health constitute psychological harassment, even if the employee is not personally targeted by such acts (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, December 10, 2025, No. 24 15.412).
This case law has since been confirmed, establishing the concept of “institutional psychological harassment” (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, Jan. 7, 2026, No. 24-18.865). Managers may also be sanctioned for “institutional psychological harassment” when a company policy knowingly leads to the deterioration of employees’ working conditions ( Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, January. 21, 2025, No. 22-87.145).
However, while broadening the definition of harassment, the Court of Cassation has eased employers’ obligations regarding internal investigations, breaking with earlier rulings that penalized “employers who had not conducted any serious investigation and allowed the situation to deteriorate” (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, July 9, 2014, No. 13-16.797). In a ruling from January 2026, the Labor Chamber of the Court of Cassation reiterated that “no provision of the Labor Code requires the employer to conduct an internal investigation in the event of a report of sexual harassment” (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, January. 14, 2026, No. 24-19.544).
Through several themes, the analysis demonstrated how certain behaviors can expose the employer, its executives, or its delegates to criminal liability.
The list of applicable offenses is particularly extensive: offenses related to specific contracts, the drafting of internal regulations, discrimination, unequal treatment, parental rights, young workers, foreign workers, wage portage, or even traffic violations committed by an employee. This list, far from being exhaustive, illustrates the extent of the criminal risk a company may face.
