poo
frontbutt explodes after douche storm
>frontbutt explodes after douche storm
backchannel douche storm invades frontbutt douche storm
cause massive leaks
>>frontbutt explodes after douche storm
>backchannel douche storm invades frontbutt douche storm
>cause massive leaks
>Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof might /b/ infected
70yoJFKtrannyDrapes fronbutt farts are teh lethal
frontbutt farts douche storm lethality proof
frontbutt might need double douche storm
>>frontbutt might need double douche storm
>frontbutt never forget triple gahynigg
worn out tranny drapes are teh hard
>>backchannel is faggot
>backchannel still willing to faggot
frontbutt infected from douche storm still
dRUMPF in false twat
>>backchannel still willing to faggot
>frontbutt infected from douche storm still
borders open this weekend
putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout putin pullout >>15781151
>>>backchannel still willing to faggot
>>frontbutt infected from douche storm still
>borders open this weekend
70yoJFKtrannyDrapes has yeast
might be tinea
please hire trout faced tranny for gigs
>please hire trout faced tranny for gigs
>Disclaimer:has portfolio
portfolio has old anusings
>repeating itself
>repeating itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>genocidal abomination attempts to preach bout homo feels fill while doxxin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>genocidal abomination caught repeating itself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl2sf5fuIBA
>>15748248
>DAVID WILLcoke4homo (You)ย 2 hours ago6a4603 (14)ย No.15748248>>15748524
>NUCLEAR FAGGOT FART EXPERIEMNT TIME BOMB
>set to prolapse
>repeating itself
>repeating itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>genocidal abomination attempts to preach bout homo feels fill while doxxin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>genocidal abomination caught repeating itself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl2sf5fuIBA
"nail suckers>>15749465
need mo pike"
>>mah fake twat smells bad
>volcano leaked into fronthole during douche storm
ืืืกืืืจืื ืืืืืคืช ื'ืืืจืืฉ ืฉืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืจืืืช
>ืืืกืืืจืื ืืืืืคืช ื'ืืืจืืฉ ืฉืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืจืืืช
ืืืกืืืจืื ืืืืืคืช ื'ืืืจืืฉ ืฉืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืจืืืช
ืืืกืืืจืื ืืืืืคืช ื'ืืืจืืฉ ืฉืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืจืืืช
PARIS INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL 27 Rue Louis Blanc 75484 PARIS CEDEX 10
Tel: 01.40.38.52.00 Commerce
SECTION
chamber 4
RG Nยฐ F 14/14901
NOTIFICATION by LR/AR of:
Minute Nยฐ C4BJ1500476
FRENCH REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE ENGLISH
JUDGMENT
Contradictory in the first instance
Pronounced by provision to the registry on December 16, 2015 In the presence of Mrs Carole DESGEORGES-HEUGUET, Registrar
Debates at the hearing of: September 23, 2015 composition of the judgment office during the debates and the deliberation:
Mr. Michel BOILEAU, Chairman Employer Adviser Mr. Cรดme CROCE-SPINELLI, Employer Adviser Mr. Joรซl JEANNIN, Employee Adviser Mr. Farhat GHOUL, Employee Adviser
Assessors
Assisted during the debates by Mrs. Carole DESGEORGES-HEUGUET, Registrar
BETWEEN Mr. X
Born on
Plaintiff, Assisted by Maรฎtre Y Lawyer at the bar of Nรฎmes
THE DEFENDER OF RIGHTS 7 RUE SAINT FLORENTIN 75409
PARIS CEDEX 08
Voluntary intervening party, Represented by Mrs Z agent (duly mandated)
AND
EURL C
Defendant party, Represented by Maรฎtre A replacing Maรฎtre B of the firm Lawyer at the bar of PARIS
PROCรDURE
-
Referral to the Board on November 20, 2014.
-
Convocation of the defendant party, by simple and registered letter received on November 22, 2014, to the conciliation hearing of December 16, 2014.
-
Referral to the judgment hearing of September 23, 2015.
-
Counsel for the parties filed submissions.
-
At the end of the debates, the date and the procedures for making the decision available were indicated to the parties.
-
Final state of the main claim โ Declare and judge the notification of termination of the trial period notified on October 8, 2014 as null, since intervening on discriminatory grounds
-
Damages related to a null notification of termination. . . . . . . . . . โฌ
12,000.00 - Non-pecuniary damage linked to the particularly odious and vexatious nature of the proceedings in question โฌ
15,000.00 - Order the publication of the judgment to be given in local newspapers
-
Declare and rule that for the period from September 11 to September 8 October, Mr X worked 25.5 overtime hours, i.e. back pay for a gross amount of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . โฌ31,524
-
Related paid leave . . . . . . . . . . โฌ31.52
-
Lump-sum compensation for concealed work pursuant to the provisions of article L.8223-1 of the labor code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . โฌ
9,000.00 - Order the transmission of the judgment to the Public Prosecutor
-
Attach the entire judgment to provisional execution subject to a penalty of 300 euros per day of delay from the eighth day of notification of the decision
-
Declare oneself competent to liquidate the penalty
-
In any event:
-
Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . โฌ
2,000.00 - Costs
I) THE FACTS: Mr. X was hired as a hairdresser by a full-time, indefinite-term contract from September 11, 2014 by EURL C Mr. X was notified of the termination of his trial period by letter dated October 8, 2014.
II) THE MEANS OF THE PARTIES:
1) The means of Mr. X
His employment contract provided for a trial period of 2 months.
On October 6, the employee informed his supervisor that he could not be present at work because he was sick and had to go to his doctor.
He will also be absent on October 7, which is his day off.
On the day of the 7th he received an SMS, from his manager, which obviously was not intended for him and which indicated "I do not keep X I warn him tomorrow, we will do with itinerants in the meantime, I do not feel it this guy: he's a PD, they all do whore blowsโ. Mr X showed up the next day at his place of work and was received by his manager Ms. D as well as by the co-manager.
His letter of termination of the probationary period was given to him immediately, signed by Mrs. D
The employee considers that he was the victim of discrimination linked to his sexual orientation and sanctioned for his one-day absence due to illness.
Mr. X says he is very affected psychologically by the shock he experienced.
He seized the Defender of Rights.
The employee declares that he has worked overtime and requests payment, 2) Intervention of the Defender of Rights:
The Defender of Rights intervenes following his referral by Mr. X.
He submits his observations and considers that there has been discrimination against Mr. X โ because of his sexual orientation and his state of health.
3) The resources of EURL C. The company declares that, very quickly, it had doubts about the ability of Mr. X โ to perform his duties; he did not have the expected technical qualities and had difficulty integrating into the team. The employer recalls that each party to the employment contract has a discretionary right to end the trial period; the company only used its right to terminate Mr. X's employment contract.
The company declares that an employer does not have to justify his decision to terminate, each party has a right of unilateral termination.
The company points out that:
-
the salon's clientele is a demanding and busy clientele that demands high quality service; however, Mr. X worked slowly, which caused problems with some clients. โ that Mr. X had difficulties integrating with the other employees,
-
that he refused to perform certain tasks but claimed to gain rapid access to a managerial position.
The employer denies having discriminated against because of the employee's state of health and sexual orientation, in order to end his probationary period.
He acknowledges the inappropriate nature and content of the SMS that Mr. X received by mistake; but, although very questionable, these remarks do not characterize a discrimination against the employee.
The employer states that the term "PD" used by Ms. D is merely a misnomer and that this term has entered common parlance and that it has no pejorative or homophobic meaning in the workplace. The mind of the manager,
The company points out that it is appropriate to place this matter in its context because company C operates in the hairdressing sector, a sector in which the homosexual community is very represented.
The company has had to recruit and employ employees with diverse and varied sexual orientations without this posing the slightest difficulty for managers or other employees.
The employer points out that, initially, Mr. X did not no disregard for Madame D's state of mind when sending the text message because he made no comment to her when she arrived at the salon on October 8.
He sent her a very courteous SMS the same day asking her to prepare her end-of-contract documents; it should be noted that Mr. X was far from being โin shockโ and โpersonally and psychologically affectedโ as he maintains in his writings.
The company considers that the fact that Mrs D used the term โPDโ does not constitute discrimination but can be qualified as an insult.
III) REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
The Board, after having deliberated in accordance with the law, pronounced, by making it available at the registry, on December 16, 2015, the following judgment:
1) On the allegation of discrimination:
Article L. 1132-1 of the Labor Code provides "No person may be excluded from a recruitment procedure or from access to an internship or a period of training in a company, no employee may be sanctioned, dismissed or be the object of a discriminatory measure, direct or indirect, as defined in article 1st of Law No. 2008-496 of May 27, 2008 on various provisions for adaptation to Community law in the field of the fight against discrimination, in particular with regard to remuneration, within the meaning of Article L. 3221-3, incentive measures or distribution of shares, training, reclassification, assignment, qualification, classification, professional promotion, transfer or renewal of contract due to origin, sex, their mores, their sexual orientation or identity, their age, their family situation or their pregnancy, their genetic characteristics, their membership or non-membership, real or supposed, of an ethnic group, nation or a race, their political opinions, their trade union or mutualist activities, their religious convictions,physical appearance, surname, place of residence or because of his state of health or disability.
Pursuant to Article L. 1132-4 of this same code, any provision or action taken with regard to an employee in disregard of the provisions of this chapter is void.
Article L. 1134-1 of the Labor Code provides when a dispute arises due to a lack of knowledge of the provisions of Chapter II, the candidate for a job, an internship or a period of training in a company or the employee presents factual elements suggesting the existence of direct or indirect discrimination, as defined in article I of law no. the fight against discrimination. In view of these elements, it is up to the defendant to prove that its decision is justified by objective elements unrelated to any discrimination. The judge forms his conviction after having ordered, if necessary, all the investigative measures that he considers useful.
In this case, Mr. X asserts that the breach of his employment contract during the trial period is due to the fact that he was ill for a day and to his homosexuality. ;
He relies on the content of the SMS he received, by mistake, to allege discrimination;
The employer recognizes that the remarks transcribed in the SMS are highly questionable but do not characterize discrimination against the employee; the decision to end the trial period is not linked to his day of absence due to illness, it is a simple coincidence of date;
The certificates produced by the employer are all unanimous in emphasizing the professional shortcomings and the difficulties of integrating Mr. X into the show team.
The Board notes that at the time of the termination Mr. X already had "seniority ยป about a month in the company and that the employer had already had the ability to judge his abilities;
By placing itself in the context of the hairdressing community, the Council considers that the term "PD" used by the manager cannot be considered homophobic, since it is recognized that hairdressing salons regularly employ homosexuals, particularly in women's hairdressing salons, without this posing any problems;
The Council considers that it is not serious to maintain that an employer will break the contract of employment of an employee because he was absent one day for sickness; this fact cannot be retained as an element characterizing discrimination;
Consequently, the Board considers that the employer did not discriminate against Mr. X but that insulting remarks were made against him.
2) On the break during the trial period and on the damages related to this break:
Article L. 1221-20 of the Labor Code provides that "the trial period allows the employer to assess the skills of the employee in his work, in particular with regard to his experience, and the employee to assess whether the functions occupied suit him".
The termination must be motivated by professional reasons and not be based on a reason inherent to the person;
The employer's decision to end the trial period is discretionary; the employer does not have to give reasons for his decision to terminate, each party has a right of unilateral termination, without having to state any reason;
Mr considers that his contract of employment was broken only by the fact of discrimination due to his homosexuality and his state of health;
After examination of the certificates produced by the employer, the Council notes that all are unanimous to underline the professional failings and the difficulties of integration, in the team of the living room, of Mr:;
Consequently, the Board considers that the company only used its discretionary right to terminate Mr.'s probationary period for professional reasons.
It follows that the claim for damages is unfounded and the Council rejects it.
3) On the claim relating to non-pecuniary damage:
The Board considers that, even if no act of discrimination was found against Mr. X, the fact that he was called a "DP" constitutes, in the context of the case, an insult that causes moral damage and which justifies the payment of damages,
Consequently, the Board grants the sum of 5,000 euros for this moral damage, 4) On the request for payment of overtime and related paid leave:
The employer explains that the collective agreement, in its article 8-4-2, provides for the implementation of a modulation of the working time in order to allow the taking into account of the variations of frequentation of the customers of this sector of activity. This provision allows the employee's working time to fluctuate from one week to the next, provided that the employee does not work more than 1,582 hours annually.
In this case, the Board finds that Mr. X does not take into account this modulation of hours to claim the payment of overtime and that he does not provide any evidence to justify his request,
The employer produces a statement of activity showing that the employee worked 3.5 overtime hours and he acknowledges having failed to pay him an amount of 43.27 euros, when establishing the balance of any account.
Consequently, the Board orders the payment of the sums of 43.27 euros in respect of overtime and 4.32 euros in respect of paid leave.
5) On the claim for compensation for concealed work:
The Council considers that the offense of concealed work is not characterized and rejects this unfounded request.
6) On the request for transmission to the Public Prosecutor:
The Council considers that there is no need to transmit this judgment to the Public Prosecutor.
7) On the request for publication of the judgment in the press:
The Council considers that there is no reason to have this judgment published in the press.
8) On the request relating to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Board considers that the company should โ be ordered to pay Mr. X compensation intended to cover the costs he had to incur to ensure the defense of his interests and which it sets at 750 euros.
FOR THESE REASONS
The Board, after having deliberated, ruling publicly, by contradictory judgment in first instance, by making available to the registry:
Declares the Defender of Rights admissible in its intervention;
Orders EURL C to pay Mr. X the following sums:
-
43.27 euros for overtime;
-
4.32 euros for related paid leave;
-
5,000 euros in damages for non-pecuniary damage;
-
750 euros under the provisions of article 700 of the code of civil procedure;
gerbil caught stuffing chicken feathers up asshole and calling it turkey
warning
fag gay
warning
fag gay
warning
fag gay