SUSESO’s classification of an illness as work-related may be an indication, but workplace harassment requires proof of harassing or aggressive conduct.
On August 11, 2026, the Rancagua Court of Appeals (Case No. 740-2025) dismissed a motion for annulment filed by a municipal employee and upheld the lower court’s ruling denying the petition for constitutional protection based on violations of fundamental rights and workplace harassment.
Thus, the ruling explicitly addressed the probative value of decisions by the Social Security Superintendency (SUSESO) in labor proceedings, establishing that the classification of a medical condition as work-related does not automatically equate to proof of workplace harassment.
The plaintiff filed a petition for judicial protection regarding workplace harassment against a municipality, alleging harassment by the mayor. The Labor Court of First Instance in Litueche dismissed the complaint, finding the evidence presented to be insufficient.
Consequently, the worker filed an appeal for annulment, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly weigh a SUSESO decision from May 2024, which had classified her mental illness as work-related after upholding a claim against the ACHS.
For its part, the Rancagua Court of Appeals found that the lower court had indeed correctly considered and weighed the SUSESO resolution, but determined that it was not sufficient to establish an unequivocal fact of workplace harassment. In the words of the ruling:
“FIFTH: Although the trial judge acknowledges that the WhatsApp messages, as well as the SUSESO decision declaring the condition an occupational disease, constitute evidence of workplace harassment, in the sixteenth recital of the ruling he proceeds to determine whether such evidence is sufficient to establish that the facts constitute workplace harassment. (…)”
The ruling then adds:
“On this point, the judge also analyzed the testimony of each of the plaintiff’s witnesses, concluding that this evidence adds nothing to the case; therefore, he ultimately ruled out the possibility that such acts could be classified as constituting workplace harassment. The judge reinforces this conclusion with the content of the ACHS’s response letter, but—contrary to the plaintiff’s allegations—also takes into account the aforementioned SUSESO resolution, which, although the trial judge characterizes as a piece of evidence, he adds does not establish an unequivocal fact constituting workplace harassment,”
Finally, the judge states:
“Therefore, the court ultimately rejects any claim for compensation, as stated in the seventeenth recital of the judgment and reiterated in its operative part, citing the relevant legal provisions.”
This ruling reinforces the distinction between the realm of occupational health and the employer’s liability for violations.
Although SUSESO’s classification of a condition as work-related could constitute valid evidence in court, in order to legally establish workplace harassment under the terms of Article 2 of the Labor Code, it is necessary to prove the existence of harassing or aggressive conduct.
For more information on these issues, please contact our Labor Group:
Jorge Arredondo | Partner | jarredondo@az.cl
Jocelyn Aros | Director Labor Group | jaros@az.cl
Felipe Neira | Senior Associate | fneira@az.cl
Palmira Valdivia | Associate | pvaldivia@az.cl
Manuel Sepúlveda | Associate | msepulveda@az.cl
Catalina Díaz | Associate | cdiazp@az.cl
Be part of our multimedia platform and you can receive the latest legal news, events, podcazt and webinars.
