The court ruled on a case concerning the Madrid college and ordered compensation of 10,000 euros to the institution for failing to protect a student who faced racist harassment and insults. The dispute involved a student who was between 8 and 10 years old at the time of the events and indicates a broader pattern of mistreatment within the school setting that impacted the student’s well being and learning experience.
The Madrid Court sustained the sentence as presented by elDiario.es, a decision that had been reviewed by the press agency EFE and later accepted by the Aranjuez Court of Fourth Instance. The central issue remained whether the school had fulfilled its duties to safeguard the student from harassment and whether the center should be held financially responsible for the consequences of the actions described in the case.
The mother brought a suit on behalf of her daughter, then 11 years old, alleging ongoing bullying with a racist component beginning in October 2012 when the child was five years old and continuing until June 2018, at which point the student had transferred to a different campus. The request targeted the school, the education center, and the regional Education Inspectorate, seeking monetary compensation and a formal apology from the institution for its failure to provide proper care, attention, and protection for the student entrusted to its responsibility.
The defendants asserted that they acted with due care and opened the appropriate bullying protocol, denying the existence of racist bullying and presenting evidence to support their actions. Yet the court found that the center failed to prove that it had taken effective steps to stop the harassment and that the student had experienced bullying at least during the 2016/17 and 2017/18 academic years, even if the school claimed that the reports did not demonstrate ongoing, permanent harm in earlier periods. The court emphasized that the presence of bullying among other students during those years did not absolve the school of its duty to protect the complainant and to address the harmful behavior directly.
The decision referenced an email from the mother sent in November 2016 in which she described troubling scenes at the schoolyard, including the child being called derogatory names and physically assaulted, with hair being pulled. The record also included entries from the class diary in which teachers noted incidents involving two classmates and described comments about the child’s skin color, alongside testimonies indicating significant distress, frequent crying, and episodes of bullying that affected the student’s emotional state.
Medical documentation associated with the events documented symptoms consistent with sadness, anxiety, and depression, and in some cases reported thoughts suggesting suicidal ideation. After the student transferred to a different institution, there was a noticeable improvement in the reported situation, though the court still held the school accountable for its earlier lapses in safeguarding the student’s welfare.
The college argued that it responded promptly and consistently, employing every available method to verify the facts, prevent further incidents, and detect potential future episodes. In support of this position, the decision outlined the functioning of the bullying protocol, the involvement of a psychological counselor, and the ongoing exchanges between the family and the school along with routine interviews conducted by school staff to monitor the situation.
Nevertheless, the appellate panel concluded that the measures taken by the education center did not align with the severity of the circumstances. The court considered the matter to be a conflict between peers rather than a sustained campaign of harassment and hence viewed the measures as insufficiently protective. It noted that the preventive actions described as indicators of alarm were not persistent enough to counteract the observed behavior, including an instance described as crying or isolation and, in March 2017, a diary entry that reflected a clearly racist component within the class context and well after the measures had been put in place.
In its analysis, the education inspector highlighted that the shortfall extended beyond the classroom walls to common areas such as courtyards and dining spaces. The limited supervision in certain places and at specific times undermined the school’s ability to prevent the abuse suffered by the minor. The court also reported that the headquarters and educational inspectors involved were not found liable, while the school itself faced accountability for the gaps in protective action and for not offering a sufficiently robust response to the reported incidents.
Overall, the ruling underscores the importance of timely, proactive, and comprehensive interventions in cases of school-based harassment. It reinforces the obligation of educational institutions to create safe environments through consistent monitoring, clear reporting channels, and sustained support for students who face discrimination or intimidation, and it clarifies that neglect in these responsibilities can lead to financial and reputational consequences for the institutions involved.