{"id":26894,"date":"2025-04-09T16:18:24","date_gmt":"2025-04-09T14:18:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/?p=26894"},"modified":"2025-04-09T16:18:26","modified_gmt":"2025-04-09T14:18:26","slug":"charge-de-la-preuve-en-matiere-de-discrimination-precision-et-illustration-de-la-cour-de-cassation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/charge-de-la-preuve-en-matiere-de-discrimination-precision-et-illustration-de-la-cour-de-cassation\/","title":{"rendered":"Charge de la preuve en mati\u00e8re de discrimination : pr\u00e9cision et illustration de la Cour de cassation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Par un arr\u00eat rendu le 2 avril 2025, la Cour de cassation apporte une pr\u00e9cision quant \u00e0 la charge de la preuve en mati\u00e8re de discrimination. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Une salari\u00e9e engag\u00e9e en contrat de travail \u00e0 dur\u00e9e d\u00e9termin\u00e9e du 11 novembre 2018 au 18 mai 2019 en qualit\u00e9 de Conseill\u00e8re client\u00e8le, s\u2019\u00e9tait vue attribuer la qualit\u00e9 de travailleur handicap\u00e9 ant\u00e9rieurement \u00e0 la relation de travail, soit 16 janvier 2018. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">A ce titre, elle a b\u00e9n\u00e9fici\u00e9 de deux visites \u00e0 la m\u00e9decine du travail les 12 d\u00e9cembre 2018 et 29 janvier 2019, \u00e0 l\u2019issue desquelles des am\u00e9nagements de poste ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9conis\u00e9s. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Post\u00e9rieurement \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9ch\u00e9ance de son contrat de travail, la salari\u00e9e a saisi la juridiction prud\u2019homale de demandes relatives \u00e0 l\u2019ex\u00e9cution de celui-ci, soutenant qu\u2019elle avait fait l\u2019objet d\u2019une discrimination en raison de son handicap, au motif notamment qu\u2019elle n\u2019avait pas dispos\u00e9 du mat\u00e9riel pr\u00e9conis\u00e9 par le m\u00e9decin du travail pour accomplir ses missions. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">En appel, les juges du fond ont d\u00e9bout\u00e9 l\u2019int\u00e9ress\u00e9e de ses demandes, au motif que cette derni\u00e8re ne produisait <\/span><em style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">\u00ab\u00a0aucun \u00e9l\u00e9ment de fait [laissant supposer l\u2019existence d\u2019une discrimination], se limitant \u00e0 se fonder sur le non-respect par la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des pr\u00e9conisations du m\u00e9decin du travail\u00a0\u00bb. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">La salari\u00e9e a form\u00e9 un pourvoi en cassation contre cet arr\u00eat d\u2019appel. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Par d\u00e9cision rendue du 2 avril 2025, au visa des articles L.1134-1 et L.5213-6 du Code du travail, la Cour de cassation rappelle les r\u00e8gles relatives \u00e0 la charge de la preuve, qui est \u00ab\u00a0partag\u00e9e\u00a0\u00bb en mati\u00e8re de discrimination, en y ajoutant une pr\u00e9cision concernant la discrimination en raison du handicap. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Pour la Cour de cassation, le fait que\u00a0<\/span><em style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">\u00ab\u00a0le m\u00e9decin du travail avait pr\u00e9conis\u00e9 la mise \u00e0 disposition de la salari\u00e9e d&rsquo;un fauteuil de type ergonomique pouvant \u00eatre r\u00e9gl\u00e9 en hauteur et dot\u00e9 d&rsquo;un appui lombaire, d&rsquo;accoudoirs et de repose-pieds et que l&#8217;employeur ne l&rsquo;avait pas fourni, [la Cour d\u2019appel] aurait d\u00fb d\u00e9duire que la salari\u00e9e fournissait des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de fait laissant supposer un refus de prendre des mesures appropri\u00e9es d&rsquo;am\u00e9nagement raisonnable\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">,  caract\u00e9rise \u00e0 lui seul l&rsquo;existence d&rsquo;une discrimination en raison du handicap. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Selon la Cour, le fait de ne pas se conformer aux pr\u00e9conisations du m\u00e9decin du travail en mati\u00e8re d\u2019am\u00e9nagement du poste de travail, sans justifier d\u2019une impossibilit\u00e9 mat\u00e9rielle l\u00e9gitime, constitue mesure discriminatoire. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.courdecassation.fr\/decision\/67eccf6105aee137f36c3529?judilibre_juridiction=cc&#038;judilibre_chambre%5b%5d=soc&#038;page=3&#038;previousdecisionpage=3&#038;previousdecisionindex=6&#038;nextdecisionpage=3&#038;nextdecisionindex=8\" target=\"_blank\">Cass. soc., 2 avril 2025, n\u00b024-11.728<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Par un arr\u00eat rendu le 2 avril 2025, la Cour de cassation apporte une pr\u00e9cision quant \u00e0 la charge de la preuve en mati\u00e8re de discrimination. Une salari\u00e9e engag\u00e9e en contrat de travail \u00e0 dur\u00e9e d\u00e9termin\u00e9e du 11 novembre 2018 au 18 mai 2019 en qualit\u00e9 de Conseill\u00e8re client\u00e8le, s\u2019\u00e9tait vue attribuer la qualit\u00e9 de [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":26892,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_seopress_news_disabled":"","_seopress_video_disabled":"","_seopress_video":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas_manual":[],"_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable_all":"","_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-actualites-en-droit-social"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26894"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26894\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26896,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26894\/revisions\/26896"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26892"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}