In France, discrimination due to association with a person bearing certain characteristics is prohibited. The justification for the interpretation of the national legislation is the law of the 16th November 2001 number 2001-1066 on the fight against discrimination. It contains a list of characteristics which are protected under Art. 225-1 of the French Penal Code (Code pénal), Art. L1132-1 of the Labour Code (Code du Travail), Art. 6 of Law No. 83-634 of the 13th July 1983 concerning civil servants (Loi portant droits et obligations des fonctionnaires) and Law No. 2008-496 of the 27th May 2008 concerning various provisions implementing the anti-discrimination law in communities (LOI portant diverses dispositions d'adaptation au droit communautaire dans le domaine de la lutte contre les discriminations).

In the case of Enault v SAS ED. 2008 No. 08/04500, the Court of Appeal (Cour d’Appel) in Caen, France, applied associated discrimination in French law for the first time on the 17^{th of} September 2008.

The case concerned a female employee of a supermarket whose partner was employed as a manager and trade union representative in the same branch. During a tense period of union negotiations, she was questioned in an unfriendly manner by the supermarket’s district manager. The district manager had previously told her that, in the absence of the manager (i.e. her partner), she was now responsible for the supermarket and the poor product design. The employee was then suspended and dismissed, even though a colleague in the same position in the shop was not treated in this way and the product design was not her responsibility.

An investigation by the French Equal Opportunities and Discrimination Committee (Haute Autorité de lutte contre les discriminations et pour l'égalité (HALDE)), held that there was discrimination against a person because of her close relation to another person, who is active in a trade union. The Court of Appeal confirmed at a hearing on 29^thNovember 2008 a violation of Act L1132-1 of the French Labour Code in discriminating against the employee because she was the partner of the trade union delegate. It also clarified that the life partner himself could not have been subjected to such an act, as he was protected by his status. In addition, it found that another colleague who worked in the same position as the plaintiff was not treated in this way. The Labour Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the employer to pay €15,000 in damages. The court followed the ECJ’s interpretation of the Coleman case.

On indirect associated discrimination, similar to the CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria case, there are no court decisions in France as of yet.