The civil room of the Superior Court has partially given the reason to a worker who brought thecompany to justice, accusing her of forcing her exit with pressure and intimidation maneuvers. The Batllia had initially rejected the complainant’s demand, but the second instance has partially revoked the resolution by determining that the company did use a strategy of coercion. He orders the company to pay him 7,165.50 euros for justified withdrawal4,000 euros corresponding to variable wages, 939.79 euros for unused vacations, and the legal interests and legal costs of the two instances must be added to them, in addition to declaring and paying these amounts to the CASS. What the room has not accepted is the compensation of more than 21,000 euros that the complainant claimed, alleging that she had suffered harassment at work and discrimination due to maternity because it is decided that they are not accredited.
The boss threatened her with charges that he would not file if she left
The worker filed a claim onOctober 2024 based on harassment, coercion and discrimination following her pregnancy and subsequent maternity. In addition, he complained that the company had not correctly paid him commissions and other salary concepts. For the Batllia it was a one-off labor dispute and there was no evidence of harassment. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Courtwho has particularly valued the content of a conversation that the worker, commercial agent, had with the head of the company and that he recorded, in order to correct the Batllia. The employee, with an indefinite contract, had started one down in June 2023 for a high-risk pregnancy, followed by maternity leave. In that meeting the boss made it clear to him that they did not want his reinstatement. The words of the superior are particularly decisive for the magistrates to conclude that it was a planned action to get the worker to voluntarily leave the company, which is what happened: accusing her of alleged professional activities incompatible with her medical leave and threatening her with complaints to the CASS or Labor Inspection with reports from private detectives, he is also singled out for suspicions about money collected from clients. But it offers you an alternative: if you resign from the job, the company will pay you some outstanding bills and provide you with a letter of recommendation. A particularly crucial element for the civil room of the Superior which is requested because disciplinary mechanisms were not activated at the time; for the court, the use of possible administrative complaints as an instrument of pressure is clearly coercive behavior so that the complainant would leave by her own decision. However, compensation for moral damages is rejected because no elements are found to verify that the business conduct was specifically motivated by the worker’s maternity. Neither is workplace harassment seen in the strict sense in the absence of one of the essential requirements for it to occur: the repetition and systematicity of the conducts. In any case, it is considered serious conduct that justifies compensation.
