A standard is set regarding the level of liability and blame that can be attributed to an employer.
Recently, the Santiago Court of Appeals (case number 50-2025) ruled that an employer, in this case the Labor Directorate (DT), was not liable if, in a case of sexual harassment committed by one of its managers, it had adopted the existing protocol and previously developed the preventive actions that correspond to it as an employer.
The case relates to a lawsuit filed by an employee who suffered sexual harassment by her direct supervisor. Hearing the case, the trial court ordered the DT to pay $3,000,000 in moral damages.
The administrative body filed an appeal for annulment with the Santiago Court of Appeals against this ruling, since, although it did not dispute the existence of the act of sexual harassment suffered by an employee of its department by her boss, it had, as an employer, taken the security measures required by law, consisting of declaring the complaint admissible, initiating an administrative investigation, completing the stages of the investigation, and sanctioning the accused employee with dismissal.
Thus, even though the sexual harassment had been committed by a manager, and in view of the measures and actions taken by the employer, he could not be held liable for damage that he had not caused.
Resolving the dispute, the court determined that “such evidence is sufficient to determine that the harassment did not come from the employer, but from an employee, even though the employer had previously done everything that could reasonably be expected to prevent this type of misconduct from occurring in the workplace.
It added that “this does not mean that it was the employer who violated the complainant’s fundamental rights, simply because it did not meet the standard of requirements demanded by the court.”
Consequently, it also mentions that “it is possible to establish that the employer took the measures that could reasonably be expected of it to prevent the events that affected the worker, without being responsible for the conduct of another worker, having for these purposes a protocol for action in such circumstances; its employees were aware of this protocol; it ordered an investigation, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the employee; the work environments were separated, and it demonstrated an interest in maintaining a good working environment, so it cannot be concluded that it was the employer who violated the employee’s rights.”
Finally, the lower court’s ruling, which had convicted the Labor Directorate, was overturned, and a standard was set regarding the level of responsibility and blame that can be attributed to an employer for acts constituting sexual harassment committed by a senior manager of the organization and the duty of care that is expected of the employer.
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.
