Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
With its ruling issued on November 14, 2024, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) addressed a highly significant legal and social issue: the burden of proof in cases of workplace mobbing. This decision, which is expected to influence future case law, clearly defines what a worker must prove in order to claim damages for psychological harassment in the workplace. It also reinforces the legal framework based on Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code, which outlines the employer’s duty to protect the employee’s physical and moral integrity.
One of the most important aspects of this decision is the recognition that mobbing can occur through a series of actions that are, in isolation, formally legitimate, but that, when combined and repeated with a hostile purpose, violate the employee’s rights and constitute a contractual breach by the employer.
Legal Background: Article 2087 and the Employer’s Duty of Care
Under Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code, an employer is required to adopt all measures that, in light of the nature of the work, experience, and best practices, are necessary to protect the physical and moral well-being of the employee. This broad provision is the cornerstone of employer contractual liability when a worker is exposed to harmful working conditions, whether physical or psychological.
In the context of mobbing, the Supreme Court emphasized that this type of breach is unique. It involves a sequence of acts that are only unlawful when seen together, as part of a systematic and targeted effort to isolate, humiliate, or psychologically harm the worker. Each act may appear legitimate on its own, but their cumulative effect and the intent behind them are what constitute the violation.
The Case: A Long Legal Battle Involving an INAIL Employee
The case reviewed by the Court originated from a damages claim filed by an employee of a public entity that had been absorbed into INAIL (the Italian National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work). The employee alleged that between 1998 and 2003, he had suffered repeated workplace harassment and discrimination, and sought over €840,000 in damages.
His claim was first dismissed by the Rome Labor Court in 2015. On appeal, the Rome Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal in 2019. The worker then filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court, raising five legal objections. INAIL defended the judgment, and the Supreme Court ultimately declared the appeal inadmissible, rejecting all five objections and confirming that the lower courts had acted properly.
The Role of Evidence and the Limits of Supreme Court Review
One of the key themes in the ruling is the importance of evidence in workplace mobbing cases. The worker’s first argument claimed that the appellate court had misinterpreted the documentary evidence. The Supreme Court rejected this, clarifying that it is not within its jurisdiction to re-evaluate factual evidence. This task belongs solely to the trial and appellate courts.
The Court noted that the lower courts had examined the facts in detail. Incidents such as the employee’s refusal to attend a work conference or the alleged “theft” of vacation days were addressed with sound reasoning. For instance, the employee had declined to attend a conference alongside a superior he did not respect, and his requested leave had not been granted because the activities he performed during that time were unauthorized.
The Key Element in Mobbing: The Hostile Intent
The ruling makes it clear that the decisive factor in identifying mobbing is the presence of a persecutory intent. If an employee simply claims a violation of Article 2087 without alleging mobbing, they only need to prove the breach of duty and the causal link between the breach and the harm suffered. However, if the claim involves mobbing, the burden of proof is more stringent.
In such cases, the employee must prove the existence of a pattern of behavior, a hostile intent, and a causal connection to the psychological harm suffered. The Court reiterated previous case law, such as the 2020 decision no. 10992, which had already established that it is the worker’s responsibility to prove the persecutory intent—not the employer’s burden to disprove it.
Apparent Reasoning and the Principle of Correspondence
Among the worker’s other objections was the allegation of a lack of reasoning in the appellate decision, as well as a breach of the principle of correspondence between what was requested and what was ruled upon. The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, stating that the lower court had given a fully reasoned and consistent explanation of its decision, and that the absorption of other appeal points into the main rejection was legally and logically valid.
The Court also clarified that a ruling is not unreasoned if the judge explains the decision logically and based on a coherent reading of the facts, even if some arguments are absorbed and not addressed in detail.
Ordinary Contractual Liability and Established Principles
The ruling also reiterates the well-established legal principles on contractual liability, particularly those affirmed by the Italian Supreme Court’s United Chambers in decision no. 13533/2001. In summary:
- The employee (as creditor) must only prove the existence of the obligation and state that it was not fulfilled.
- The employer (as debtor) then has the burden to prove that they fulfilled their obligations.
However, in mobbing cases, the issue is more complex because the violation does not stem from a single act, but rather from a coordinated set of behaviors that only become unlawful in the presence of persecutory intent.
Final Remarks: The Supreme Court’s Key Legal Principles
This ruling offers a valuable contribution to the evolving jurisprudence on psychological harassment in the workplace. It not only confirms the central role of Article 2087 in protecting workers, but also defines more clearly the strict evidentiary standards required to establish mobbing.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that:
- Workplace mobbing involves a series of actions, which, although lawful when considered individually, become unlawful when unified by a hostile and targeted intent.
- A worker alleging mobbing must prove the right, the breach, the damage, the causal connection, and crucially, the persecutory intent behind the employer’s actions.
This means that employees cannot rely on general claims of discomfort or disagreement; rather, they must present clear, documented evidence of a systematic and hostile pattern of behavior. Without this, even questionable or unpleasant conduct may not meet the legal standard for mobbing.
The ruling reinforces the idea that mobbing cannot be presumed and requires solid, credible proof. This serves to both protect genuine victims of harassment and ensure fair and predictable legal outcomes in the realm of workplace disputes.
the established principles:
Cases of workplace mobbing constitute violations of Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code and, as such, fall within the scope of contractual liability. These cases differ from other violations of the same article in that they are primarily characterized by a series of formally legitimate actions by the employer, which, when taken together and motivated by a hostile or persecutory intent, amount—despite their formal correctness—to a breach of the obligations set forth in Article 2087.
An employee who alleges a violation of Article 2087 bears the burden of proving both the conduct constituting the employer’s failure to comply with their obligation and the causal link between that failure and the damage suffered. The employee is not required to prove the employer’s fault. However, if the claim involves an allegation of mobbing, the worker must not only allege the employer’s breach and prove the legal basis of their right, the damage claimed, and the causal link between the breach and the harm suffered, but must also demonstrate the existence of a persecutory intent on the part of the employer.
