“But as a woman you already have an exceptional career! “ This is the response of a RATP career manager made to Catherine C., senior executive, when she had explained to him her desire to access the status of executive officer, which she will never obtain. “There is a glass ceiling”, estimates this engineer, retired since 2013. On several occasions during her career, she thus felt discrimination for which she sought redress from the courts.
Unsuccessful by the Paris industrial tribunal in 2018, she obtained from the Paris Court of Appeal, in a judgment of July 7, the order of the RATP to pay her 290,000 euros in damages for economic damage related for the sex discrimination she suffered, 10,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 5,000 euros for violation of agreements on professional equality.
Catherine C. joined RATP in 1982 as an assistant line inspector in the bus department of a Paris depot, with executive status. In 1990, she became director of a bus center in Seine-Saint-Denis, and will be the only woman to hold such a position for several years. In 1997, she was appointed senior executive and became director of metro line 10. Again, at that time, she was the only woman in such a position. In 2002, she was delegated to the director of a department. In 2006, she was responsible for a unit.
A panel of 14 men
Catherine C. has received recognition over the years. For example, on a proposal from the RATP, she was named Knight of the National Order of Merit in 2002. At the same time, she receives substantial performance bonuses each year. But her professional development, especially salary, is not, according to her, the level of some male colleagues.
To prove this discrimination, Catherine C., defended by the law firms Sophie Kerihuel and Boussard-Verrecchia, used the so-called “Clerc” method, named after the CGT unionist François Clerc, who developed it. This involves comparing, from a time corresponding to the start of the period of discrimination estimated by Catherine C., i.e. 1997, her career path with those of a panel of male employees with comparable characteristics – diploma, position, etc. On the basis of this panel of 14 men, the Court of Appeal finds that the employee “Has undergone, since 1998, a real stagnation in the evolution of his career and his remuneration” which is not justified by the RATP “By objective elements”.
RATP disputes the relevance of the panel. In the first instance, the company had provided its own sample of four employees. “It showed that discrimination is not established”, says Jean Agulhon, director of human resources for the group. On the side of Catherine C., like the RATP, we are considering an appeal in cassation.