“Victims of discrimination must know that they must push the doors of law firms and push the doors of courthouses”, prompted Jérôme Delas, lawyer from Bordeaux, Tuesday, December 7 on franceinfo. Jérôme Delas is a member of the Elucid Convention, the leading network to help victims of discrimination. According to a barometer published Tuesday, more than one in three young people (37%), aged 18 to 34, say “they have experienced a situation of discrimination or discriminatory harassment in the context of their job search.”
Defender of rights Claire Hédon believes that this discrimination has serious consequences on the psychological health of young people. Jérôme Delas notes “more and more, an internalization of discrimination” by the victims. Reacting to the case of a young woman of North African origin whose employer asked her to change her name and surname, the lawyer recalls that “it is illegal”.
franceinfo: Can an employer impose a name change?
Jérôme Delas: Obviously not. We can see one of the difficulties that is highlighted by the 14th barometer on the perception of discrimination, namely the emotional repercussions that can be suffered by a victim of discrimination. In this case, this young woman is receiving treatment which is totally unlawful, illegal treatment, and which labor law must be able to protect.
Is it complicated to establish the facts between the feelings of the victim and the reality of the facts?
This is the whole difficulty. Even if it is necessary to sensitize victims of discrimination on one point: we do not really ask victims of discrimination to prove that they are victims of discrimination. There is a proof system which is a lean system. In general, for people who are victims of discrimination, they must present elements which suggest the existence of discrimination. Then, the judge will have to decide and arbitrate, and in particular according to the elements that the opposing party will be able to produce to know if the decision which was taken was unrelated to any discriminatory criteria, and therefore based on objective elements.
Feelings should not be part of the facts. We must be able to truly invite more and more individuals who are victims of discrimination to take legal action, precisely to combat this kind of decision, to show that it is not a matter of feeling but that it is acts of reprehensible practices.
There is the emotional repercussion, the fear or fear of reprisals as well as the fear and difficulty of being able to assert your rights. Who am I going to turn to? How am I going to be able to highlight this discriminatory phenomenon, this discriminatory system? And this is all the more important as, more and more, we have the impression that there is an internalization of discrimination. But there are other issues of discrimination based on state of health, sexual orientation or disability.
Don’t the victims feel lonely and dare to go to a lawyer?
We are left completely alone, and yet there are many mechanisms that allow these people who are victims of discrimination to go to an association, a lawyer or the courthouse. Victims of discrimination must know that they must push the doors of law firms or push the doors of courthouses, because there are people who are specifically trained to take their word, to defend their rights and to defend them. help prepare their case.
How can employers also be made aware of this discrimination?
The whole difficulty is that you have to have the two links in the chain envisaged. There is the sanction, which can be of a civil nature, with a labor conviction. But it should also be remembered that in criminal matters, discrimination is punishable by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros. This is important. And there is all the logic of prevention and promotion of equal opportunities which have their place in companies. Labor law is still particularly well armed in this area.
On the other hand, it is perhaps a little more complicated to fight against discrimination in access to housing. The proof of discrimination is still a little more complicated. In employment, it is more difficult to prove when one is in a process of access to employment. Discrimination is easier to prove when we are present in the company and have access to a certain number of documents. But this approach is very weakening, insofar as it can lead to destabilize the employee who is under an employment contract.