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.
Thierry Bonnet worked for RATP from 1986 until 2005, when Mr. Bonnet noticed that other employees were smoking in places meant for collective use. Mr. Bonnet invoked his "right to retreat" stating that his exposure to secondhand smoke posed an imminent risk to his health and stopped going to work. In retaliation, RATP withheld Mr. Bonnet's salary. Mr. Bonnet brought suit in the administrative labor court seeking his withheld wages, a return to his professional position, removal of this incident from his professional file, and punitive damages. RATP claimed that Mr. Bonnet spent a maximum of 5% of his working time in enclosed places where smoking might occur, that these locations had been made smoke free in compliance with the law, and that Mr. Bonnet could not prove that he was exposed to second hand smoke while he was working. The court ruled partly in favor of Mr. Bonnet, finding that RATP failed to enforce the smoking ban on its premises. The court, however, did not rule for Mr. Bonnet with respect to damages, finding that he did not prove he was exposed to passive smoking in a way causing imminent danger to his health.