Workplace Harassment: The insidious war against employees

Editor: Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer in Cyprus

The development of the law on the issue of harassment in the workplace in recent years aims to better protect the previously completely unprotected employee. Unfortunately, the impression has prevailed that harassing behavior by the employer or colleague is tolerated or normal and in any case unpunished. 

Thus, many employees are subjected to systematic psychological violence in their work environment due to this erroneous culture of "tolerance" that has legitimized behaviors that are rooted in the serious psychopathologies of the abusers. This article explores the legal definition of mobbing, the specific forms of workplace harassment and the relevant case law, on the occasion of the issuance of new legislation on mobbing in the Cyprus jurisdiction.

What is mobbing?

Mobbing occurs when an individual is systematically harassed, intimidated, or isolated by colleagues, superiors, or subordinates in a professional environment. Unlike isolated acts of harassment, mobbing involves repeated and persistent negative actions aimed at humiliating, marginalizing, or ultimately forcing the victim out of the workplace. Typical behaviors include:

  • Spreading rumors or malicious gossip
  • Constant criticism or humiliation
  • Social exclusion or isolation
  • Undermining the victim’s work performance
  • Assigning unreasonable tasks or removing meaningful responsibilities

In Cypriot law, the definition of mobbing arises from the combination of the definitions of “violence” and “harassment” in the workplace [1]:

“violence” means an act, omission, practice or conduct, including threats, which has the purpose or effect or consequence of which is likely to cause the victim, physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or damage, and which is carried out in the workplace and manifests itself either individually or repeatedly.

“harassment” means conduct in the workplace that is unwanted by the recipient, which has the purpose or effect of offending or violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment;

Forms of Workplace Harassment

Workplace harassment is perhaps the quietest form of a cruel war, because it happens behind closed office doors and very often in a subtle and non-obvious way.

Mobbing encompasses a broad range of behaviors. It is important to distinguish between different forms, as they have varying legal implications and may require specific responses.

1. Psychological Harassment (Moral Harassment)

This is the most common form related to mobbing. It involves persistent conduct that undermines an employee’s dignity, psychological integrity, or working conditions. Examples include:

  • Repeated humiliation or ridicule
  • Threats or intimidation without cause
  • Unjustified criticism or demotion
  • Spreading malicious rumors

2. Social Exclusion (Ostracism)

Mobbing often involves intentional social isolation. Colleagues or supervisors deliberately exclude the targeted employee from meetings, discussions, projects, or social gatherings. Examples:

  • Not inviting the person to team events
  • Ignoring their contributions in meetings
  • Deliberately withholding important information
  • Exclusion from mailing lists

3. Verbal Harassment

This involves offensive comments, shouting, sarcasm, or demeaning language. While a single incident may not amount to mobbing, repeated verbal abuse over time can constitute systematic harassment. Examples:

  • Constant yelling
  • Insults based on personal traits
  • Repeated belittling remarks about performance

4. Professional Harassment (Work Sabotage)

Professional harassment relates to deliberately undermining an employee’s ability to perform their job effectively. Examples:

  • Assigning meaningless tasks or impossible deadlines
  • Assigning excessive workload with the aim of causing the employee to fail
  • Constantly changing work instructions without justification
  • Exploitation of an employee's work and presentation of it as their own work without reference to the employee who actually worked.
  • Withholding necessary tools, resources, or information

5. Cyber Harassment (Digital Mobbing)

With the growth of digital communication, mobbing has expanded to online platforms. Cyber harassment includes:

  • Sending offensive emails or messages
  • Publicly humiliating the victim via workplace communication tools
  • Creating hostile online groups or chats

6. Discriminatory Harassment

Although discrimination (e.g., based on race, gender, age, disability) can stand alone as a separate legal issue, it often overlaps with mobbing. A targeted employee may be subjected to systematic harassment because of a protected characteristic, leading to claims under anti-discrimination laws. For example, a black or gay employee is systematically harassed for these reasons by his/her colleagues in the workplace.

7. Sexual Harassment

In some cases, sexual harassment can form part of a mobbing campaign if multiple individuals contribute to a hostile environment or if sexual harassment is accompanied by broader acts of psychological abuse.

The new Cypriot Legislation on Mobbing

On 11 April 2025, the new legislation on harassment in the workplace (mobbing), the Law 42 (I)/2025 on the Prevention and Combating of Violence and Harassment in the Workplace, was published and entered into force in Cyprus. The new law, which fills a legislative gap in the Cypriot legal system, aims to prevent and combat violence and harassment in the workplace through civil and/or criminal law and by establishing extrajudicial procedures. The Law aims to:

(a) protect complainants, victims and witnesses from victimisation or retaliation against them;

(b) protect the privacy of the persons involved and confidentiality, to the extent possible and appropriate, and ensure that confidentiality requirements are not abused; and

(c) recognise the impact of domestic violence and, to the extent reasonably practicable, mitigate its impact on work.

The provisions of the new Law apply:

(a) to employees, with regard to activities related to their employment and conduct in the workplace, which constitutes violence or harassment in accordance with the provisions of this Law;

(b) to employers, with regard to their acts or conduct that are the result of a complaint, denunciation or rebuff of acts of violence or harassment in the workplace;
(c) to third parties who have a customer or contractual relationship or provide services in the workplace or to the employer or to members of the public who visit the workplace or the employer and with regard to acts or conduct that constitute violence or harassment.

It is noted that those responsible for violence or harassment in the workplace, if convicted, are subject to a prison sentence of up to three (3) years or a fine of up to ten thousand euros (€10,000) or both.

Key Case Law on Workplace Harassment

Workplace harassment, including mobbing, has been addressed by courts across jurisdictions under various legal frameworks. Below are some foundational and illustrative cases:

United States: Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) [2]

The Court held that harassment does not need to cause serious psychological injury to be actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.It established the standard that conduct creating a hostile or abusive working environment is prohibited when it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. This case underpins modern harassment doctrine in the U.S., though it does not use the term‘mobbing’explicitly.

 United Kingdom: Majrowski v. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust (2006) [3]

The Court held that an employer can be vicariously liable for acts of harassment committed by employees under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Though originally criminal legislation, the Act was held to provide civil remedies in workplace harassment cases. Opened the door for victims of sustained bullying and mobbing to claim damages in tort, even where employment laws might not apply. [4]

Germany: Bundesarbeitsgericht (BAG), 25 October 2007 – 8 AZR 593/06 [5]

The Court recognized mobbing as a legal concept, defined as systematic hostility or humiliation that violates the dignity of the affected person. BAG emphasized that employers are liable under § 241(2) and § 823 of the German Civil Code (BGB) for failing to protect employees’ personality rights. This case clarified the burden of proof, requiring employees to demonstrate repeated and intentional acts of harassment over time.

European Court of Justice: C-303/06, Coleman v. Attridge Law and Steve Law (2008) [6]

This landmark decision by European Court of Justice extended anti-discrimination protection to employees harassed based on their association with a disabled person. The ECJ interpreted the EU Equal Treatment Directive broadly, reinforcing that harassment (and by extension, mobbing) can take many indirect forms. The Court established that EU law covers harassment creating an intimidating, hostile, or degrading environment, consistent with modern interpretations of mobbing.

European Court of Human Rights: M.F. v. Hungary (2021) [7]

The Court found a violation of Article 8 (right to private and family life) where a public employee suffered psychological harassment. Recognized the positive obligation of states to protect individuals from serious psychological harm at work — potentially including mobbing.

Conclusion

In recent years, the enactment of specific legislation on workplace harassment and the relevant case law that followed have brought to light a silent and "legitimized" violent and harassing behavior that unfortunately had prevailed, that it was part of the employee's job and that the gratifying benefit of the salary included it too! Now, employees have legal weapons to face this insidious war in their workplace and are encouraged to do so without second thoughts. Revealing an abusive employer or colleague will not only protect the complainant him/herself, but probably also other employees who did not have the courage to speak up.

George Kazoleas is a qualified Lawyer both in Greek & Cyprus Law. Since 2005 he has an extensive professional experience, as legal counsel and litigator being also certified mediator in civil & commercial disputes in Cyprus.

Email: giorgos.kazoleas@gmail.com

 

 


[1] Article 2 - The Prevention and Combating of Violence and Harassment in the Workplace Law of 2025

[2] U.S. Supreme Court, 510 U.S. 17 (1993)

[3] House of Lords (Supreme Court), [2006] UKHL 34

[4] It should also be mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court Ruffley v The Board of Management of St Anne's School (2017), in which the Supreme Court emphasized the key elements of the bullying test, focusing on the conditions that must be met to trigger a compensation claim: the behavior must (i) be repeated; (ii) constitute inappropriate behavior; and (iii) undermine the employee's dignity in the workplace.

[5] BAG, 8 AZR 593/06

[6] ECJ (Grand Chamber), 17 July 2008

[7] Application no. 45855/12, 31 October 2017

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Prohibiting contact between children and their mother in custody and contact rights case was unjustified (ECtHR)

Image
The case of X and Others v. Slovenia (application nos. 27746/22 and 28291/22) concerned custody decisions and contact rights following the separation of X from her children’s father in 2018. It also concerned the reassignment of X’s court case to a particular judge.  In Chamber's judgment in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as regards X’s right to a tribunal established by law, and violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) with respect both to:  - the applicant children, as regards the order to remove them from X’s (their mother’s) care in March 2020, their not being represented in the contact and custody proceedings, and their not being allowed contact with their mother;  - X, for not being allowed contact with her children.  The Court found in particular that the President of the District Co...
Read more

Air passenger rights: A boarding pass may be sufficient to prove a confirmed reservation on a flight

Image
According to the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-20/24, a boarding pass may be sufficient to prove a confirmed reservation on a flight. Payment by a third party of the price of the package tour, including a flight, does not exclude the right to compensation in the event of long delay of a flight.  An air carrier offering charter flights concluded a contract with a tour operator. Under that contract, the carrier operated, on specific dates, flights for which that tour operator, after paying for the flights, sold tickets to air passengers. Two air passengers participated in a package tour, including a flight from Tenerife to Warsaw, the arrival of which was delayed by more than 22 hours. The contract relating to the package tour was concluded between a third company, on behalf of those passengers, and that tour operator. The passengers concerned claimed compensation from the air carrier under EU law. [1]  The latter refused to pay that compensation. It argued...
Read more

The “Green Maze”: Environmental Obligations for Cement Companies in Greece and Cyprus

Image
Written by Efi Thoma * The cement industry plays a crucial role in the infrastructure development of both Greece and Cyprus. However, this essential sector also carries a significant environmental footprint. From quarrying raw materials to the energy-intensive production process, cement companies face increasing scrutiny and stringent legal obligations aimed at mitigating their impact on the environment. This article delves into the key environmental issues and the pertinent legal frameworks in Greece and Cyprus that cement manufacturers must navigate. Both Greece and Cyprus, as members of the European Union, are bound by a substantial body of EU environmental law. This includes cornerstone directives such as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), the Waste Framework Directive, and legislation addressing climate change and biodiversity. These EU regulations are transposed into national law in both countries, forming the bedrock ...
Read more

The Swiss authorities failed in their positive obligation to protect the life of a woman from violence by her partner (ECtHR)

Image
In the case of N.D. v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of the right to life in a case involving violence against a woman by her partner. The applicant, who had been unaware of her partner’s criminal record, was kidnapped by him from her home after informing him that she wished to end their relationship. She was then falsely imprisoned over an 11-hour period and subjected to rape and ill-treatment. To this day, the applicant suffers from the psychological after-effects of the treatment inflicted on her. The Court found that the authorities had not done all that could reasonably have been expected of them to avert the real and immediate risk to the applicant’s life, of which they had been or ought to have been aware. It noted that there had been neither an adequate assessment of the risk to the applicant’s life nor operational measures which might have had a real chance of altering the course of events or mitigating the da...
Read more