An employee of an association, hired as a program manager in Haiti, contracted a tropical disease some time after taking office, placing him on sick leave and forcing him to be repatriated. After a few months, he was finally declared fit for the post, and he was dismissed shortly thereafter for serious misconduct.

The employee brought an action before the labor court seeking compensation for his employer’s failure to comply with his obligation to provide him with security, citing in particular his poor working and accommodation conditions; that his employer provided him with defective water filtration equipment which, according to him, caused his illness; and that he failed to provide him with assistance after his illness.

Both the labor court and the Court of Appeal dismiss the employee’s claim on the grounds that the employee does not adduce evidence that his employer made him drink poorly filtered city water and that it is known in Haiti that city water is not drinkable, thus implying drinking bottled mineral water. The Court of Appeal then held that the employee had failed to observe his basic duty of care and that he could not lay the blame on his employer.

The employee decides to go to the Court of Cassation.

It quashes the decision of the Court of Appeal by pointing out, first of all, that the employer, bound by an obligation of security towards employees, must take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and protect the physical and mental health of workers.

It considers that the grounds invoked by the Court of Appeal, based on the recklessness of the employee, are unsuitable for establishing that the employer had taken all the necessary measures; the Court of Appeal does not reply to the facts invoked by the employee, namely that ‘his employer had not provided him with any assistance or assistance when he contracted his tropical disease, because of a lack of suitable equipment, had left him sick on his own, and had not wanted to organize a medical repatriation’.