French Woman Sues Employer After Being Paid to Do Nothing for 20 Years

For many, the idea of receiving a paycheck without having to work might sound like the dream job. But for one French woman, it became what she describes as a form of “psychological torture.”

Laurence Van Wassenhove, a 59-year-old mother of two, has filed a lawsuit against Orange, one of Europe’s largest telecommunications companies, accusing the firm of “forced inactivity” and long-term workplace discrimination.

Despite being employed for more than 20 years, Van Wassenhove says she was given no responsibilities, no tasks, and no sense of purpose — effectively leaving her invisible in her own workplace.

From promising career to professional limbo

Van Wassenhove joined Orange in 1993 with ambitions to build a career in human resources. But after developing epilepsy and hemiplegia (a paralysis affecting one side of the body), she was reassigned from her HR role to a secretarial position.

In 2002, she applied for a transfer to another region of France. However, an occupational health assessment determined she was unfit for the move. From that point, she says her career stalled completely. She was placed on “standby” status, continuing to receive her salary but stripped of duties.

Speaking to French media outlet Mediapart, she recalled: “I was paid, yes, but I was treated like I didn’t exist.”

Laurence Van Wassenhove, a 59-year-old mother of two, has filed a lawsuit against Orange, one of Europe’s largest telecommunications companies, accusing the firm of “forced inactivity” and long-term workplace discrimination.

Facebook/Laurence Van Wassenhove

The hidden cost of “doing nothing”

While some might imagine being paid without working as a blessing, Van Wassenhove describes the opposite effect. Over the years, the lack of meaningful work and social interaction took a toll on her mental health. She says she sank into severe depression and felt like an “outcast secretary” in the company.

“Being paid, at home, not working is not a privilege. It’s very hard to bear,” she told FTV.

Van Wassenhove alleges that Orange repeatedly sidelined her, offering little more than temporary sick leave and eventually suggesting early retirement because of her disability. She claims her requests for retraining, redeployment, or any form of support went unanswered, even after she filed an official complaint with the French High Authority for the Fight Against Discrimination back in 2015.

Despite being employed for more than 20 years, Van Wassenhove says she was given no responsibilities, no tasks, and no sense of purpose — effectively leaving her invisible in her own workplace.

Bloomberg

The legal case against Orange

Her lawyer, David Nabet-Martin, argues that Orange failed to meet its legal obligations under French labor law, which requires employers to provide meaningful work and reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.

He contends that excluding Van Wassenhove for decades amounts to direct discrimination. “This case shows how inactivity can be just as destructive as overwork,” he explained, adding that her treatment reflected systemic neglect rather than isolated oversight.

Orange responds

In response to the lawsuit, Orange has defended its handling of the situation, telling French outlet La Dépêche that the company had considered Van Wassenhove’s “personal social situation” and took steps to ensure she remained in the “best possible conditions” despite her limited ability to work.

The telecom giant also claimed she had been considered for new positions within the company, but her frequent periods of sick leave made reintegration difficult.

Van Wassenhove joined Orange in 1993 with ambitions to build a career in human resources.

Unsplash

A broader debate on work, purpose, and dignity

Van Wassenhove’s case has sparked wider discussions in France about the importance of meaningful work. Her story highlights how employment is not just about income but also about identity, belonging, and purpose.

While the outcome of her lawsuit remains pending, her testimony challenges the idea that being “paid to do nothing” is a luxury. For her, two decades of inactivity became a silent burden — one she hopes will now be recognized in court.