Second Chamber reaffirms standards of proof in workplace harassment case

The Court recalled that protection against harassment at work derives from the need to ensure a violence-free working environment and to preserve the dignity of the worker, in line with ILO standards and international human rights instruments. For harassment to exist, it is necessary to demonstrate concrete and repeated conduct intended to undermine dignity or to force workers to leave their jobs.

In this case, the Chamber concluded that the complainant's allegations were generic and did not establish specific facts that would establish a pattern of harassment. It pointed out that the mere initiation of administrative proceedings does not constitute harassment at work, especially when those proceedings had been declared time-barred and had no negative consequences. The testimonial evidence provided by the plaintiff's spouse was considered insufficient as it referred indirectly to the alleged facts. Nor was the psychological expert evidence provided effective, as it lacked a proven factual basis.

The Chamber reaffirmed that harassment at work cannot be presumed and that it is up to the employee to provide a precise account and concordant evidence to prove systematic harassment. The lack of objective elements led to the dismissal of the case, consolidating the requirement of a rigorous evidentiary standard to differentiate between ordinary labour disputes and true harassment at work.

Source: https: //nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0005-1290123