Headquarters of the Supreme Court, in Madrid.Alberto Ortega (Europa Press)
The Supreme Court has sentenced an employee of the municipality of a municipality in Seville to pay 20,000 euros to a colleague who abused continuously for a year. The Provincial Court has already sentenced him to pay compensation of 3,000 euros, but the high court has now raised that figure to 20,000. The ruling also condemns the consistory as subsidiary civil responsible for the payment of compensation, stressing that "the employer is responsible for establishing safety conditions against sexual harassment at work." The judges recall that there is an express obligation to ensure such security in section 48.1 of the Equality Act 2007.
In the resolution, notified on Monday, the Criminal Chamber dismisses the appeal of the convicted against the sentence of the Provincial Court of Seville, which imposed four years and three months in prison for a continuous crime of sexual abuse and another crime of attempted sexual abuse. According to the proven facts, the accused and the victim provided work services in cleaning tasks for the municipality. "At the beginning or during the working day, taking advantage of the fact that both were alone in the dependencies in which the work was carried out, such as the sports center, the school, the house of culture or in some ships of the local corporation, with lewd spirit, the defendant has touched the breasts of (the victim) as well as other areas of his body, He has approached from behind rubbing against her and has pulled out his penis touching it (the victim)."
The events occurred on at least eight occasions from the summer of 2014 to August 31, 2015. This last day, around 8.20 in the morning, the defendant took the victim to the services of the sports center, and once there, he took out his penis and asked the victim to perform fellatio. The woman refused and both were overheard by another city hall employee, who heard the woman "in a distressed voice" say she couldn't do it and the defendant insisted she do it. The witness "was strongly shocked", and slammed the door to let the workers know that he was there, before which the defendant decided to leave the place.
The proven facts also stated that the victim presented "an intellective level below the average", "which is easily perceptible by third parties" with a mild-moderate mental retardation, "with instructive deficit, has an immature personality that does not reach the sufficient intellective, maturing and emotional level to fully and adequately understand sexual relations. " This circumstance, the judges point out, made her vulnerable "to external requirements beyond her control, presenting an impaired capacity to consent (...) all of which facilitated the commission of the above acts by the accused, who knew (the victim), being aware of his limitations."
The Supreme Court modifies the judgment of the Provincial Court only in relation to civil liability, by partially upholding the victim's appeal. The court considers that the compensation of 3,000 euros is low, since the moral damage caused by sexual abuse must assess not only pathological or psychological alterations, but also "the impairment of dignity". In this case, the court warns, "where eight episodes of abuse and one more of attempted penetration are declared proven, as well as the situation of special vulnerability of the victim, in the absence of other indicators, even with the moderation that results from the casuistry, the compensation should not be less than 20,000 euros. "
In addition, it establishes the subsidiary civil liability of the municipality, when the requirements for recognizing it are met, such as that the person declared responsible for the crime has been sentenced to compensate the victim; that the accused is dependent on the consistory for employment; and that at the time of the commission of the crime he was carrying out his work. The sentence adds that the municipal public service was provided through the sports center, where the person responsible for the crime was entrusted with the "auxiliary but essential" task for the development of the activities that are done in that place and it is on the direct occasion of those cleaning tasks when he abuses his partner.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Read more
I'm already a subscriber