‘You have a nice ass’: Rights advocate criticizes treatment of soldier victim of sexual harassment in army

In a decision revealed on March 13 by The Parisianrights defender Claire Hédon criticizes the way the army conducted an investigation into a sexual harassment case among its ranks.

Julie (name has been changed) was hired on August 1, 2016 in an equestrian section. Since the beginning of her duties, the recruit has been subjected to sexual harassment by her superior. ” You like to take it from behind », « you have a nice ass », « Did you spread your thighs during class? he would tell her.

The man also allegedly sexually assaulted her by repeatedly placing his hand on her buttocks, asking her if she’s ” he wanted more ». The soldier also complains about late visits to his bedroom door, around 11pm. ” He came to type (…), he said to me: Let me in, I want to talk to you (…). His behavior highlighted his desire to have sex with me “, as reported in the document initiated by the Defender of rights.

“ He talked to me very closely trying to scare me”, “he spat at me (…), he grabbed my throat “, describes, in addition to exhausting working days, late hours and no lunch break.

“Gaps” in the internal investigation

For a certain period, the young woman turned to a manager. No reaction from her. Two years after taking office, the soldier seized Thémis, a cell in charge of dealing with cases of sexist insults within the Ministry of Defence. An internal investigation was therefore launched, but the January 2019 report deems it impossible” say with certainty that the defendant is “guilty”. The latter receives 10 days off for a rather innocuous remark made against him.

“ The ways in which the administrative investigation was conducted raise some difficulties such as to weaken the conclusions “, assures the report of the Defender of rights, carried out on 21 February.

For Claire Hédon, this sanction “ cannot be considered suitable “. Facts ” accurate and consistent it would demonstrate the existence of “sexual harassment” and “retaliatory measures”. His decision overwhelms shortcomings of the investigative command », going so far as to ask « the impartiality of the investigator “.

Because during the internal investigation, the interviews conducted by a commander of the military arena would not have resulted in any report. The interviewee would not even have been interviewed. A simple written report allows him to give his version of the facts. Without contradiction, he refuses ” categorically all charges » brought against him.

Julie filed a complaint against her superior on April 30, 2019. The latter had himself reported her for a slanderous complaint a few months earlier. Pending the progress of these practices, the Defender of Rights urges the Ministry of the Armed Forces to proceed” compensation for all damages suffered “, which she considers “considerable”.

On sick leave since 2018, Julie fears she may never return to her duties.