CMS Expert Guide on sexual harassment in the workplace

Sexual harassment is prohibited by the Austrian Equal Treatment Act (“Gleichbehandlungsgesetz”) passed in 2004 and by the Federal Equal Treatment Act (“Bundes-Gleichbehandlungsgesetz”) passed in 1993. Since then, there have been amendments due to European Union legislation. The rules in both acts follow the same scheme and address:

  • sex-related harassment i.e. unwanted conduct related to the protected characteristic of sex;
  • harassment of a sexual nature i.e. unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.

(Sexual) harassment is subject to the Equal Treatment Act if it (1) results in an intimidating, hostile or humiliating work environment for the people concerned or this conduct is aimed to do so, or (2) if it results in a less or more favourable treatment based on a person's rejection of, or submission to, sex-related harassment or sexual harassment. 
Section 6 Austrian Equal Treatment Act prohibits harassment:

  • by the employer,
  • by a third party related to the employment,
  • by a third party not related to the employment.

The Act also holds the employer liable if he or she fails to provide a remedy against (sexual) harassment.  

Turkish Labour Law ("the Law") obliges employers to protect their employees as part of their duty of care, therefore this also includes protection against harassment. 

Further, the Law deems sexual harassment in the workplace as a reason for immediate termination of employment. Therefore, if an employee who has experienced  harassment at  work and has previously reported the harassment to the employer, and the employer has failed to take the necessary precautions against the harassment, the harassed employee would be able to resign with immediate effect and seek certain statutory payments.  

The Law and the related protection has been in place since 2003.

In addition, the Turkish Code of Obligations also requires employers to establish order in the workplace ensuring that the personal rights of employees are protected. However, the actual implications of this obligation, implemented in 2011, have not been well defined by court decisions  and therefore remain relatively theoretical.  

The term sexual harassment is not defined by Russian law. Depending on the facts of the case sexual harassment may either be considered as discrimination or as another type of offence (e.g. coercion into sexual contact, etc.).

The Russian Labour Code (dated 30 December 2001) prohibits any type of employee discrimination including any sex-related discrimination (there are, however, no statutory norms explicitly regulating sexual harassment at work). A similar legal provision is also contained in the Constitution of the Russian Federation dated 12 December 1993, which protects the equality of all persons irrespective of their sex.

Employers are also allowed to include provisions addressing sexual harassment at work in collective bargaining agreements; however, this is not a widespread practice in Russia.

2. Are employers in this jurisdiction required to take pro-active action to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace?

The Austrian Equal Treatment Act treats the employer's failure to address and put an end to sexual harassment as itself sexual harassment. Hence, the employer is legally obliged to act if any charges of sexual harassment occur, but not to pro-actively engage in action to prevent sexual harassment. 

As mentioned above, employers are required to take pro-active action to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace as part of their duty of care to their employees. The obligations under the Code of Obligations explained above may also be considered as prompting employers to take action. However, in practice, Turkish courts would review whether an employer has taken the necessary precautions against harassment once it has been reported by an employee (as opposed to whether the employer took precautions even before the harassment took place).

There are no explicit statutory requirements for employers to take any pro-active measures in this regard. However, the employer must make sure that employees’ rights are not violated and, in this respect, should any cases of sexual discrimination/ harassment take place at work, the employer must take measures to remedy the respective violation.

3. Has the #MeToo movement had a noticeable impact on the number of harassment claims against your employer clients?

No, there has not been a noticeable impact on the number of harassment cases against our clients, but we experience an increasing awareness of how damaging a company's failure to act swiftly and appropriately on sexual harassment allegations may be.

No.

No. Based on the available information, this movement had no impact on the employment relations, nor has it led to any claims filed by employees against employers in Russia.

Employees may receive support from their works council or trade union, the Austrian Chamber of Labour, or the Ombudsman for Equal Treatment (“Gleichbehandlungsanwaltschaft”). All the bodies mentioned can initiate legal proceedings at the Equal Treatment Commission (“Gleichbehandlungskommission”). Additionally, the employee can claim compensation in front of labour courts.

The employee is entitled to a minimum compensation of EUR 1,000.00 for the personal detriment suffered. Moreover, any other financial loss must be compensated.

In line with the legal remedies mentioned above, the harassed employee would be entitled to lawfully terminate their  employment contract and claim all statutory benefits (among others severance pay, unused holiday pay, pay for any overtime work performed, other outstanding amounts such as bonuses) if the employer has failed to take precautions following the occurrence of a case of harassment.  

Where the employer has failed to prevent harassment and has acted negligently in this respect, the employee may be able to claim non-material damages as well based on the failure of the employer to fulfil its duty of care

The employee can bring a claim to court and/or state labour authority against the employer. If the employer is found violating the employee’s labour rights, it can be subject to an administrative fine of up to RUB 50,000 (approx. EUR 560). The corresponding manager can also be fined up to RUB 5,000 (approx. EUR 56). The remedy can also depend on the type of action taken by the employer against the employee, e.g. if the employee was wrongfully dismissed, the court may also reinstate the employee in his/her position.

The employee can also claim in court “moral damages” suffered due to their employer’s unlawful actions. In order to claim moral damages, an employee will need to provide proof (e.g. by submitting a medical certificate issued following a medical examination of the employee.) The causal relationship between the harm caused to the employee’s health and the employer's actions, as well as the amount of the claimed moral damages should also be established by court. In practice, courts usually award very insignificant amounts of moral damages (up to EUR 500).

The victim can also make a claim to the police (depending on the nature and consequences of harassment). Sexual discrimination committed by a person by the use of his/her management power is considered to be a crime in Russia (the convicted person can be sentenced to up to 5 years to prison). If the element of management power has not been involved in the case of discrimination (e.g. when the discriminator occupies the same or an inferior position against the discriminated person and, thus, cannot exploit his/her job position for this purpose), then the violating person can be subject to an administrative fine of up to RUB 3,000 (approx. EUR 34). If a relevant offence has been committed by the company (e.g. if the company refused hiring the person based on his/her sex), it can be subject to an administrative fine of up to RUB 100,000 (approx. EUR 1,120).

Coercion into sexual contact, including the use of a person’s dependent position (which could be relevant for the corresponding case between the employee and his/her manager), is also considered to be a crime in Russia and may lead to the corresponding punishment (up to one year imprisonment). It should be noted that criminal liability in Russia can be imposed only on individuals (companies cannot be held criminally liable in Russia).

In addition, public dishonouring of a person on the basis of his/her sex can be recognised as an administrative offence and lead to imposition of an administrative fine of up to RUB 500,000 (approx. EUR 5,600) on companies and RUB 20,000 (approx. EUR 225) on corresponding company’s officers (who alternatively can also be arrested for 15 days, or charged with community service of up to 100 hours). If the same offence has been repeated by a natural person within one year after this person was imposed with the said administrative liability, he/she could be held criminally liable and, as a result, may be imprisoned for up to 5 years. Additionally, if such an offence was committed by a person with the use of his/her job position, then he/she could be subject to criminal liability (up to 6 years imprisonment) even for a single offence.

5. On a traffic light red/amber/green scale, how high a priority is tackling sexual harassment for clients in this jurisdiction?

Tackling sexual harassment is of medium priority for our clients (amber). Our impression is that companies aim to deal with harassment cases professionally, given the increasing moral awareness and the increasing risk of reputational damage. There is an increasing appetite to quickly address allegations of harassment to avoid reputational damage and to minimise the physical and psychological stress of the individuals involved. Yet, we strongly advise clients to place more importance on measures to prevent sexual harassment.

For most of our clients, this would be considered a high priority matter, so a red light, assuming that it is intended to show the highest priority.

Currently, the priority addressed to this matter in Russia sits in the green category. Relevant claims are very rarely filed by the employees, and employers, accordingly, do not consider this to be a major issue in practice.

6. Any other relevant information on workplace harassment?

The allocation of the burden of proof works in favour of the employee as the individual employee must only show the credibility of the harassment allegations. It lies with the employer to refute these allegations.

The Law is the primary source regarding the workplace-related regulations. Further, as mentioned above, the Turkish Code of Obligations also imposes certain obligations on the employer although the actual implications of these remain unclear. 

As for the criminal law aspect of this behaviour, this is regulated under the Turkish Criminal Code. It should also be noted that the criminal law aspect of harassment would not be binding on labour courts which means that even if a suspect is acquitted of criminal proceedings related to a case of sexual harassment, he/she may continue to face labour law sanctions (i.e. termination of employment).

It should be noted that in relevant cases it is usually quite difficult for an employee to prove the acts of discrimination due to a lack of available evidence (unless there is a witness who can confirm the allegations).

In addition, we estimate that the quantity of corresponding claims from employees could possibly slightly increase in the future given that employees become more educated about their rights.