The worker, on sick leave due to anxiety-depressive disorder and with recognized IPT, claimed €92,843 for alleged attacks.

The appeal No. 6050/2024, filed against the sentence handed down by the Social Court No. 2 of Ferrol (orders 824/2023), was resolved. The plaintiff requested the revocation of the sentence, the recognition of sexual and workplace harassment,the declaration of violation of fundamental rights, and the joint and several condemnation of the companies, their insurers and the administrator to pay the compensation claimed, in addition to the admission of new documentary evidence and the reversal of the burden of proof.

The worker provided services as a cashier since 2002 and took medical leave due to common illness on December 13, 2021, due to anxiety-depressive disorder. During her IT, the worker received treatment for anxiety, headaches, syncope, and episodes of medication overingestion. In January 2023, she reported work and sexual harassment attributed to one of the administrators and in June 2023, the INSS recognized her total permanent disability.

In January 2024, he suffered a new episode of overeating after meeting his former boss and in May 2024, he reiterated the reported events, detailing the behaviors allegedly suffered. However, clinical reports did not confirm suicidal intent with pill consumption.

Among the events assessed, in September 2020 a customer witnessed an episode of screaming and flight from the worker, in November 2021 she was reprimanded for consuming products from the store and WhatsApp messages were examined that reflected a close relationship between the worker and the alleged harasser. Additionally, she was removed from the courier work group during her leave.

The lawsuit was dismissed at the first instance and an appeal was filed.. He alleged harassment and requested to incorporate medical reports that indicated acute stress, chronic migraine and lumbar disc disease, defending the prevalence of medical evidence over testimonial evidence.

The defendant companies denied the facts and questioned the evidence presented. The insurers, for their part, alleged that the worker's situation was the result of a common illness, unrelated to the work environment.

The Superior Court of Justice of Galicia applied a broad interpretation of the concept of harassment, in accordance with international standards (ILO, EU) and doctrine of the Constitutional Court (STC 56/2019).He stressed that neither repetition nor intentionality is required for a behavior to be considered harassment, it is enough for it to be objectively harmful.. He also recalled that it is necessary for the worker to provide sufficient evidence to activate the reversal of the burden of proof, then transferring to the company the obligation to justify the reasonableness and legality of its actions.

In the specific case,the Court concluded that no such well-founded evidence had been provided. The incident witnessed by the client was not classified as serious, nor was it the subject of a complaint or intervention. The WhatsApp messages did not show harassing behavior, but rather, a reciprocal link in treatment. Nor was a clear and direct causal relationship proven between the conduct of the company administrator and the health status of the worker. Consequently, the Court The alleged harassment or violation of fundamental rights was not considered proven.. For all these reasons, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court ruling. No compensation or responsibility was recognized on the part of the companies, insurers or the alleged aggressor.