dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

,=,e ＼＿ヾ(ᐖ◞ ) ID: 835104 March 14, 2022, 6:25 p.m. No.15864832 🗄️.is 🔗kun

#ass #larp

Μια ψευδής ιστορία Οι διαβολικές ασυνέπειες είναι μια περίπλοκη απάτη

היסטוריה מזויפת ג'יבריש שטני הונאה מורכבת

>>15747204

>repeating itself

>>15747201

>repeating itself

>>15747201

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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) 2 hours ago6a4603 (14) No.15748248>>15748524

>NUCLEAR FAGGOT FART EXPERIEMNT TIME BOMB

>set to prolapse

>>15747204

>repeating itself

>>15747201

>repeating itself

>>15747201

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>genocidal abomination attempts to preach bout homo feels fill while doxxin

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>genocidal abomination caught repeating itself

>>15749535

"nail suckers>>15749465

need mo pike"

>>mah fake twat smells bad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl2sf5fuIBA

>volcano leaked into fronthole during douche storm

היסטוריה מזויפת ג'יבריש שטני הונאה מורכבת

PARIS INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL 27 Rue Louis Blanc 75484 PARIS CEDEX 10

>>15864810

>military and humanitarian ass

>>15864763

>ass and systemic, and surrogacy technologies

>>15864675

>he fled from the scene of the earlier robbery and ass

>>15864640

>has rejected Wikileaks founder Ass

PARIS INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL 27 Rue Louis Blanc 75484 PARIS CEDEX 10

Tel: 01.40.38.52.00 Commerce

SECTION

chamber 4

RG N° F 14/14901

NOTIFICATION by LR/AR of:

Minute N° 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. Côme CROCE-SPINELLI, Employer Adviser Mr. Joël 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 Maître Y Lawyer at the bar of Nîmes

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 Maître A replacing Maître B of the firm Lawyer at the bar of PARIS

PROCÉDURE

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 – 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. . . . . . . . . . €

12,000.00 - Non-pecuniary damage linked to the particularly odious and vexatious nature of the proceedings in question €

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . €31,524
Related paid leave . . . . . . . . . . €31.52
Lump-sum compensation for concealed work pursuant to the provisions of article L.8223-1 of the labor code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . €

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . €

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 blows”. 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 – 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 – 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. – 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 “in shock” and “personally and psychologically affected” as he maintains in his writings.

The company considers that the fact that Mrs D used the term “PD” 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;