A Supreme Court ruling established that proving the existence of sexual harassment is sufficient to justify dismissal.
On August 8, 2025, the Supreme Court, hearing an appeal for unification of jurisprudence (case ROL No. 4.075-2024) — which sought to resolve “whether it is possible to weigh or rate the severity of conduct constituting sexual harassment” — determined, after analyzing dissimilar rulings on the matter and the origin of the regulation of sexual harassment, that conduct of this type in the workplace constitutes sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the worker, without it being necessary to weigh its severity or apply less severe sanctions.
The case that gave rise to this unification originated in the dismissal of an employee on the grounds of sexual harassment, following an investigation carried out by the Labor Inspectorate. The employee, dissatisfied with the grounds for dismissal applied in his case, decided to take legal action to protect his fundamental rights against his former employer.
Although his claim was rejected in its entirety, the Santiago Court of Appeals partially upheld the appeal for annulment filed against it in relation to the unjustified dismissal, arguing that, in a case such as this, the proportionality of the sanction and the employee’s work history should be considered.
In this context, the Supreme Court, hearing this appeal for unification of jurisprudence, overturned that decision, stating that it was not “appropriate to classify the conduct described as sexual harassment in a less intense manner in order to exclude it from the grounds for dismissal, as sought through the subsidiary cause of nullity alleged by the dismissed worker.”
In this regard, the ruling emphasizes that “it is sufficient to prove the conduct of sexual harassment—a fact established in the proceedings—to constitute grounds for dismissal, as it is an eminently serious behavior that affects the fundamental rights of the victim of such conduct.”
Finally, the ruling highlights the employer’s obligation to ensure a safe working environment in accordance with the provisions of Article 184 of the Labor Code, which reinforces the court’s decision.
This ruling marks a position of the Supreme Court, which considers that, due to its seriousness, sexual harassment does not require additional analysis to justify the termination of the contract, but only the occurrence of the act itself.
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
Be part of our multimedia platform and you can receive the latest legal news, events, podcazt and webinars.
