Judicial decisions in cases of mobbing and discrimination

WARNING !!! automatic translation from Polish

  • Supreme Court:
    • for the judgment of 10 June 1999 [When determining the extent of harm suffered, account should be taken first of all of the severity of suffering, the duration of the disease, the size of disability, the persistence of the consequences and the consequences of damage to social and personal life] II UKN 681/98
    • for the judgment of 6 December 2005 [(...) The employee is also obliged to cite facts indicating mobbing and burden him with the burden of proof (...)] II PK 94/05
    • for the judgment of 5 December 2006 [Statutory conditions for mobbing specified in art. 94 [3] § 2 must be met jointly and should be indicated by the employee (Article 6 of the Civil Code). The employee also has the burden of proving that the harassment resulted in a health disorder] II PK 112/06
    • for the judgment of 17 January 2007 [It is not possible to rigidly specify the minimum period necessary for mobbing. From the content of art. 94 [3] § 2 and 3 of the KP, however, that for the assessment of longevity, the moment of occurrence of the effects of harassment or intimidation of an employee indicated in these provisions - in the form of a low self-assessment of professional suitability, humiliation or ridicule of an employee, isolation or elimination from a team of co-workers, is important. health disorder - and persistence and severity of such activities]
    • for the judgment of 20 March 2007 [An employer who, due to the deteriorating condition of the company, offers the payment of severance pay to employees who may retire or receive pre-retirement benefits, cannot be charged with mobbing]
  • Court of Appeal in Krakow:
    • for the judgment of November 29, 2000 [Explains the concept of 'health disorder'. They should be assessed in medical terms, it is not enough to indicate only the consequences in the psychological sphere of the victim, such as feelings of sadness, depression, regret and other negative emotions]
  • Court of Appeal in Katowice:
    • for judgment III APa 170/05 [(...) Assessment of persistence and long-term impact on employees within the meaning of Art. 93 [3] § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is individualized and must be applied to each specific case (...)]
  • Poznań Court of Appeal:
    • for judgment III APa 60/05 [(...) In order to recognize a given behavior as mobbing, it is required to state that the employee was the object of influence, which according to objective measure can be assessed as having one of the effects specified in art. 94 [3] § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure When assessing this premise, it is necessary to create an objective model of a reasonable victim, which in the field of mobbing will eliminate cases resulting from excessive sensitivity of the employee (...)]