Accused of workplace harassment: start with the facts
A workplace-harassment accusation in France requires separating the alleged events, the internal inquiry and any later disciplinary proceedings. Prepare a factual response one point at a time, using records you lawfully hold. The worksheet separates agreed, disputed and unverified facts. It does not assess anyone’s credibility, decide whether harassment occurred or replace appropriate support for your particular situation.
Source H1Source H2Julie by AlphaDeep is an AI legal assistant for French law, built for individuals and professionals, with sourced answers, document and case-file analysis, assisted drafting and team sharing. Compare AI legal assistants for French law.
Is this an inquiry or disciplinary proceedings?
An inquiry seeks to establish facts. A disciplinary summons or issued sanction is a separate stage with its own rules. Source H2Source H4
How should I separate the alleged events?
Use one row per alleged event: known or uncertain date, context, allegation and available record. Keep different episodes separate.
What if I agree with a fact but dispute its interpretation?
Separate what happened from how it is interpreted. Worksheet categories organize your response; they do not legally classify the conduct. Source H1
How can I respond to a specific allegation?
Separate the allegation, what you know and what your records can verify. This preparation does not assess anyone’s credibility or decide whether harassment occurred.
Fictional example · you can change the fields
Your entries stay on this page until you choose to continue.
Your preparation
One response point to document
- My remarks during a meeting were said to be belittling.
- I need a date or example
- State that no record is identified; do not fill the gap with an assumption.
| Allegation | Possible response | Verification |
|---|---|---|
| Belittling remarks in a meeting | Ask for the date, words and context | Lawfully held agenda and minutes |
| Repeated messages | Place identified messages in their full thread | Preserve context without misleading selection |
| Impact on another person | Do not infer or deny their experience | Distinguish observed facts from interpretation |
Which records can I connect to my response?
Work with records you lawfully hold and state what they show. A missing record remains an unverified point.
Should the worksheet score witnesses’ credibility?
No. It does not rate people or prepare contact with witnesses. It organizes your own facts and records.
What happens in the other cases?
- Acknowledged fact
- Describe the specific fact and context without treating an explanation as justification for repeated conduct.
- Disputed or unclear fact
- State the factual disagreement or clarification needed. Avoid attributing motives to the other person.
- Sensitive record
- Do not bypass access controls, collect records covertly or contact witnesses to influence them. Check the conditions for using records.
Can the worksheet conclude there was no harassment?
No. Harassment has a legal definition and the inquiry examines the facts. Document preparation cannot decide that legal classification. Source H1Source H2
What if I receive a summons or a sanction?
Identify the new stage and check its rules. Existing summons, warning and dismissal pages cover those situations separately. Source H3Source H4
How can I continue the preparation with Julie?
Take one specific point and its record, anonymizing the example where possible. Julie can help structure a response without conducting the inquiry.