This ruling from the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court raises the compensation from 3,000 euros to 20,000 euros for a City Council employee in a small Seville municipality. The award addresses the harm caused to a coworker who repeatedly faced sexual harassment at the start of the day or during work as a cleaner for about a year.
The most notable aspect of the decision, announced this Monday, is that the Supreme Court also held the City Council vicariously liable for secondary civil liability. The court underscored that it is the employer’s obligation to ensure safe workplace conditions against sexual harassment, and that if the aggressor cannot pay, compensation should be provided by the employer. The ruling aligns with a clear constitutional duty to enforce equality between men and women and supports the practical enforcement of that right through civil remedies.
The case does not name the offender’s name to protect the victim, who has moderate cognitive impairment. In its ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the municipal employee’s appeal against the Seville Provincial Court, which had sentenced him to a total of 4 years and 3 months in prison for ongoing sexual abuse and related offenses. The facts demonstrate that the defendant and the victim carried out cleaning duties for the city. Seizing opportunities when alone in places like the gym, the school, the culture house, or a city storage facility, the perpetrator acted during work hours and touched the victim and carried out other forms of harassment with a lascivious intent.
up to 8 floors
The incidents occurred at least eight times between the summer of 2014 and August 31, 2015. On the last day, around 8:20 a.m., the accused took the victim to the sports center and, upon arrival, allegedly exposed himself and requested an act of sexual submission, which the victim refused, citing disgust. A witness later heard the woman express distress, shouting that she could not comply, and the accused then left the venue after the witness interrupted the scene by banging on a door to signal his presence.
The proven facts also note the victim’s cognitive and emotional characteristics. The victim is described as having an intelligence level below the population average, a notably immature personality observable to third parties, and mild to moderate mental retardation. The court described limited education and an inability to fully comprehend sexual relations due to vulnerabilities beyond the victim’s control, which affected her capacity to give consent in such situations.
The appellate court subsequently adjusted the civil liability judgment. It held that a 2,000-euro non-pecuniary damages award was insufficient given the harm to dignity and the broader psychological impact of sexual harassment. In a particular set of circumstances—eight established instances of abuse, the absence of other indicators, the victim’s vulnerability, and at least one additional attempt at penetration—the court ruled the compensation should not be less than 20,000 euros. That figure was set in the final sentence.
The Supreme Court also established a subsidiary liability for the City Council when certain conditions are met: the individual responsible for the crime is required to compensate the victim; the offender was employed by the City Council; and the offender was performing cleaning duties at the time of the crime and relevant duties had been reviewed with the victim prior to the events. The ruling clarifies that City-run municipal services, such as the Sports Center used for recreational activities, include roles that may place workers in vulnerable situations. The offender’s conduct, carried out during official duties and in the context of supervising and performing daily cleaning tasks for the municipal service, directly exploited the vulnerability of a special-needs individual, affecting the victim’s dignity and well-being in that work environment.
(Source: Supreme Court decision; attribution to the relevant court records and official ruling.)