The first decision in Greece for sexual harassment of a male employee by his supervisor – The chronicle of the case

The employee, disconnected displacement that day, had been successful the store with his partner. In beforehand of the acold cuts refrigerators, helium testified, helium was abruptly and inappropriately gestured astatine by his supervisor. The manus that touched him was accompanied by a diagnostic motion of soundlessness and soon afterwards by a susurration of “I got it from behind, is it allowed from the front?” The incidental did not hap successful a secluded spot, but successful beforehand of 2 witnesses: his spouse and a colleague.

For him, the lawsuit multiplied his consciousness of shame and humiliation arsenic it unfolded successful nationalist view. The suit helium filed astatine the Municipal Court of First Instance of Rhodes is not constricted to this peculiar scene. Rather, it describes a signifier of behaviour that preceded it and created a workplace clime that was intimidating and hostile. Two months earlier, successful February, helium had received a compartment telephone connection with vulgar intersexual contented from the aforesaid man. The crude phraseology is recorded verbatim successful the lawsuit record and, arsenic noted, was the employee’s archetypal wide denotation that the powerfulness narration successful the workplace had turned into a means of insult and pressure.

After the April incident, helium decided to talk out. On April 26, helium sent an email to elder institution executives, describing successful item what had happened. He repeatedly requested information camera footage, which helium said covered the country of the store wherever the harassment occurred. Despite his efforts, helium ne'er received it. This denial led him to judge that the institution was unwilling to analyse the substance meaningfully. The aforesaid happening happened, helium says, erstwhile helium requested authoritative code accusation from the supervisor truthful helium could usage it for his ineligible recourse.

According to the paper Demokratiki of Rhodes, connected May 2, 2024, helium appealed to the Rhodes Labour Inspectorate. There, a labour quality study was drawn up, and connected June 21, the decision was issued nether record fig 345298. In the document, which is quoted successful afloat successful the file, a strict proposal is made to the leader to comply with the caller organization model for dealing with unit and harassment successful the workplace and to instrumentality measures to support employees. For the worker, it was the archetypal clip helium had seen his ailment person an organization response, which encouraged him to proceed his struggle. In the meantime, helium had been informed that the supervisor had near the institution connected his ain initiative. The resignation was confirmed successful a memo filed by the absorption successful May. Nevertheless, for the employee, the resignation did not destruct the insult.

As helium points retired successful his lawsuit, helium had already felt mentally devastated, humiliated successful beforehand of his spouse and co-worker, and with his dignity and representation successful the workplace wounded. His assertion was not lone motivation but besides legal: helium was seeking compensation for the motivation harm helium had suffered. The lawsuit record contains extended references to the ineligible framework. Article 337 of the Criminal Code, which deals with offences against intersexual dignity, is discussed successful detail, with references to decisions of the Supreme Court. It is clarified that adjacent a motion oregon a phrase, without a afloat intersexual act, tin beryllium considered a lewd enactment if it brutally offends the dignity of another. At the aforesaid time, Articles 57, 59, 914, and 932 of the Civil Code are invoked, which support property and supply for compensation successful the lawsuit of unlawful and culpable offence.

The lawsuit instrumentality cited reinforces the presumption that property is an implicit bully and that its usurpation constitutes a peculiar signifier of tort, careless of whether determination is simply a transgression conviction.Of peculiar involvement is the notation to the reversal of the load of impervious successful cases of intersexual harassment. Under the existent ineligible framework, erstwhile an worker complains of specified conduct, it is capable to allege its existence; the load shifts to the leader oregon the complainant to beryllium that determination was nary violation. This is simply a captious proviso that aims to support victims from the inability to substantiate with grounds behaviour that often manifests itself without witnesses oregon recordings.

The suit besides describes the intelligence consequences. The plaintiff speaks of nonaccomplishment of bid of mind, disruption of his idiosyncratic and household life, panic and anxiousness that replaced the tranquility of his regular life. The magnitude claimed, EUR 4 940, is described arsenic tenable and proportionate, with the purpose not of enrichment but of motivation consolation. As noted, monetary compensation for motivation damages has a balancing function: it is intended to relieve the unfortunate and restore, astatine slightest successful part, his intelligence equilibrium.

The lawsuit reached the proceeding and the Rhodes Court of First Instance issued its judgement connected 3 September 2025. The tribunal ruled that determination was so an insult to the employee’s property and ordered his erstwhile supervisor to wage compensation of 800 euros. The magnitude was little than what helium had requested, but the value of the determination went beyond the numbers. For the archetypal clip successful a tribunal judgment, it was recognized that a antheral worker had been a victim of intersexual harassment successful the workplace, that his dignity had been violated and that helium was entitled to restitution.