The Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Murcia has rejected the appeal against the disciplinary dismissal of an employee for sexual harassment, confirming the previous ruling of the Social Court number 8 of Murcia that determined the admissibility of the dismissal and the termination of the contract without the right to compensation.

In November 2022, the Social Court determined that the dismissal was appropriate due to "a touch on the inner thigh of a company worker, and due to continued and humiliating treatment of female co-workers with sexual and sexist content." Both behaviors were established as proven facts, and although the initial ruling considered the first incident as a determining factor for dismissal, it ruled out the second due to a prior reprimand, taking it into account only to evaluate recidivism.

The company communicated the disciplinary dismissal to the worker, alleging that, when he crossed paths with a colleague, "he bent down, as if bowing, to caress her inner thigh, and gently moved it upwards towards her private parts."

The report attached to the dismissal letter concluded that the worker committed two violations of sexual harassment according to the agreement, one physical due to touching and another due to continued humiliating treatment with comments of a sexual or sexist nature towards some female colleagues. The Court ruled that, although the appellant argued that his actions did not constitute sexual harassment and that the women on the team had accepted his rudeness, this did not mitigate the seriousness of the breach of duty.

The appellant also attempted to reduce the severity of the touching by pointing out that sexual intention had not been proven in the initial sentence. However, the Court considered this aspect to be irrelevant, highlighting that the conduct was degrading and an attack on the dignity of the worker, regardless of the sexual intention. Furthermore, the allegation of violation of legal norms due to a change in the classification of the conduct was rejected, since the court was not bound by the classification made by the employer.

The Court concluded that, according to the legal definition of sexual harassment, the dismissed worker's conduct constituted a serious breach from an employment perspective and that the elements of sexual harassment were present, even without the victim's explicit statement of the unwanted nature of the conduct.

Failed: Dismiss the appeal filed by the worker and confirm the sentence handed down by the Social Court number 8 of Murcia.