Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Plaintiff was hired as an educator and counselor at a halfway house. Days after he took his post, Plaintiff wrote a letter to his employer, l'Association Espelido, advising them that he would be exercising a right of retreat because of smoking taking place in public areas of the halfway house that, by law, should have been smoke free. In retaliation, Plaintiff's contract was not renewed, and Plaintiff was replaced with a different person for the same position. Plaintiff brought suit in the employment court of Nimes, seeking monetary damages for Defendant's retaliation against him. The court agreed that unlawful smoking in public areas of the house (such as the lobby and the cafeteria) gave rise to a sufficient risk to Plaintiff for him to cease going to work. The court further agreed that Defendant's hiring of a different person to replace Plaintiff at the end of his contract term was retaliatory and that Plaintiff should have been re-hired. Plaintiff was awarded 3,600 Euros in damages for Defendant's discriminatory acts.