The fact that harassment cannot be established does not automatically make a complaint false or justify dismissal Companies have the right to investigate workplace harassment complaints and, where serious and culpable misconduct is established, to take the appropriate disciplinary measures. The difficulty arises when an internal investigation does not confirm the allegations and the company must determine what consequences, if any, should follow for the employee who made the complaint.
Can a harassment complaint be considered false simply because it cannot be substantiated? Can an employer dismiss an employee for having made such a complaint?
A recent judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands, dated 5 October 2026 (Appeal No. 550/2025), addresses precisely this issue. The Court declared null and void the disciplinary dismissal of an employee of Mercadona whom the company had accused of making a false workplace harassment complaint. The judgment establishes an important distinction: the fact that an internal investigation does not confirm the existence of harassment does not, in itself, mean that the complaint was false. To justify dismissal on this basis, the employer must establish conscious and culpable falsity.
The distinction may appear subtle, but it is fundamental from a business perspective. The fact that the allegations do not meet the legal threshold for workplace harassment is one issue; the deliberate fabrication of those allegations by the employee is another.
Failure to Establish Harassment Does Not Mean That the Complaint Was False
The first distinction a company should make when receiving a complaint concerns the existence of the alleged conduct and the legal classification of that conduct, on the one hand, and the behaviour of the person making the complaint, on the other.
An investigation may conclude that there is insufficient evidence to establish workplace harassment while, at the same time, finding that the employee acted in good faith when reporting what they experienced or perceived as harmful conduct.
This is precisely the distinction made by the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands. The Court held that the fact that moral harassment had not been established did not automatically mean that the employee had made a false complaint in bad faith.
For companies, this means that closing a harassment investigation without confirming the allegations should not automatically lead to disciplinary proceedings against the complainant. Additional evidence would be required to establish that the employee deliberately fabricated the allegations and acted in bad faith.
The Case Considered by the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands
The employee held the position of floor coordinator, a role involving significant responsibility, demanding working conditions and a high degree of availability. According to the facts considered by the Court, other coordinators described her superior as particularly demanding, and coordination meetings were regularly conducted in a tense environment.
The employee also suffered from an anxiety-depressive condition and had been receiving psychiatric treatment. In February 2023, she went on temporary sick leave.
During this period, she informed Human Resources by telephone that she felt belittled and that she had been subjected to insults and conduct which she considered to constitute harassment by her superior. The conversation was recorded by the employee herself and, during the proceedings, it was established that she had prepared notes to set out her complaints.
Approximately one month later, the company activated an internal procedure and investigated the allegations by interviewing other employees. The investigation concluded that there were insufficient indications of workplace harassment.
The company subsequently notified the employee of her disciplinary dismissal, arguing that she had made a false harassment complaint, a form of serious misconduct under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
The Labour Court initially found the dismissal justified. The High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands, however, overturned that decision and held that the bad faith required to establish that the complaint had been deliberately false had not been proven.
A Company May Investigate a Complaint, but Investigation and Disciplinary Action Must Be Distinguished
The judgment does not question the company’s right to investigate the allegations. An internal investigation is precisely one of the mechanisms available to an employer to establish what happened when an employee reports possible workplace harassment.
The issue arises when the outcome of that investigation is subsequently used, without more, to justify disciplinary action against the person who made the complaint.
A company may conclude that workplace harassment has not been established. What it cannot automatically do is turn that conclusion into an assertion that the employee lied.
This distinction is particularly important because Article 54 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute requires disciplinary dismissal to be based on serious and culpable misconduct. Among the grounds that may justify dismissal are breach of contractual good faith and abuse of trust.
Therefore, if a company intends to dismiss an employee for making a false complaint, it must be able to prove the conduct justifying the disciplinary measure. The mere absence of sufficient evidence of harassment does not replace that requirement.
When Can a Complaint Actually Be Considered False?
A false complaint is not simply a complaint that is unsuccessful.
For this type of conduct to justify disciplinary action, there must be sufficient evidence to establish that the employee attributed facts they knew to be false and acted in a serious and culpable manner.
This distinction becomes particularly important where there is a discrepancy between the employee’s perception and the subsequent legal assessment of the events.
An employee may describe conduct that genuinely occurred and believe that such conduct constitutes workplace harassment. The investigation may subsequently conclude that the conduct does not meet the legal requirements to qualify as harassment. A negative legal assessment does not necessarily mean that the events were fabricated.
In the case analysed, the Court considered that there were objective circumstances capable of causing stress and distress to the employee, including the demanding nature of the position, the tense working environment and her health background. It also took into account that she had previously expressed her perception that her superior was particularly demanding and had informed her psychiatrist that she felt she was experiencing harassment before the events that the company associated with a possible attempt to avoid her removal from the coordinator position.
Recording a Conversation With Human Resources Does Not, in Itself, Establish Bad Faith
The company also questioned certain actions taken by the employee, including the fact that she had recorded her conversation with Human Resources and prepared notes to present her complaints.
The Court did not consider these elements sufficient to establish bad faith. It also took into account that the complaint had been made privately to the person responsible for Human Resources rather than through a public campaign aimed at damaging the superior.
The conclusion has practical relevance for companies. The way in which an employee documents a complaint does not, in itself, determine whether the complaint is false.
The company must assess the circumstances as a whole and, above all, whether there is sufficient evidence that the allegations were deliberately fabricated.
The Protection Against Retaliation Becomes Particularly Relevant
The judgment goes beyond finding that the dismissal was unjustified. The Court found a breach of the guarantee of indemnity, which protects employees against retaliation for asserting employment rights.
This is particularly relevant because an adverse employment decision taken shortly after an employee has made a complaint may create an additional risk for the company: that the measure will be interpreted as retaliation for exercising employment rights.
The Organic Law 5/2024 of 11 November on the Right of Defence expressly recognises protection against adverse consequences arising from certain actions taken before the employer or administrative or judicial bodies to assert employment rights.
This does not mean that an employee who makes a complaint is immune from disciplinary action. It means that, where the employer subsequently takes an adverse measure, it must be able to demonstrate that the decision is based on a legitimate and sufficient reason unrelated to the exercise of the rights that prompted the complaint.
The chronology of events therefore becomes particularly important.
Does This Mean That a Harassment Complaint Can Never Justify Dismissal?
No.
The judgment does not establish disciplinary immunity for employees who make harassment complaints. If an employee deliberately fabricates events, knowingly accuses another person of conduct that never occurred or fraudulently uses the company’s internal procedures, such conduct may be subject to disciplinary action.
What the Court requires is that such conduct be established.
Article 54 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute requires disciplinary dismissal to be based on serious and culpable misconduct. The company must therefore have sufficient evidence to distinguish a bad-faith complaint from a complaint that simply could not be substantiated.
This distinction is particularly relevant in workplace harassment cases, where an investigation may establish that certain conduct occurred but that it does not reach the level of repetition, seriousness or objectively hostile nature required to constitute harassment in legal terms.
Internal Investigation Should Be Kept Separate From the Disciplinary Decision
The case highlights the importance of separating the different stages involved in handling a complaint.
A company should receive and document the complaint, investigate the allegations, determine whether harassment or another irregularity has occurred and only then assess whether there is sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary action.
The outcome of one stage should not automatically determine the next.
The fact that harassment has not been established does not mean that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the complainant. Likewise, the fact that an employee has made a complaint does not prevent the company from taking disciplinary action if serious and culpable misconduct is subsequently established.
Keeping these stages separate reduces legal risk and, importantly, allows the company to explain coherently why each decision was taken.
The Harassment Protocol as a Genuine Preventive Tool
A harassment protocol should not be treated merely as a formal compliance document.
When a company receives a complaint, its internal procedure should provide a framework for determining who receives the complaint, who conducts the investigation, how information is preserved and what measures may be taken during the process.
In this context, companies should periodically review their internal employment policies in Spain and ensure that their complaint, investigation and disciplinary procedures are properly aligned.
A well-designed internal framework can also reduce the risk that a harassment investigation will itself generate a second dispute concerning the company’s response.
Mental Health and Psychosocial Risks: Another Dimension Companies Should Consider
The case also has a dimension relating to the employee’s mental health. The company was aware of her temporary incapacity and certain circumstances relating to her health. The judgment highlights the importance of addressing such circumstances from a preventive and protective perspective.
The Occupational Risk Prevention Act 31/1995 establishes the employer’s duty to effectively protect employee health and safety and to integrate prevention into business management.
Where the company is aware of circumstances that may affect an employee’s health or involve psychosocial risks, it should also consider the relevant preventive dimension before taking decisions that could aggravate the situation.
It is important, however, to clarify that in this case the declaration that the dismissal was null and void was expressly based on a breach of the guarantee of indemnity. The Court did not find workplace harassment established and did not consider the employee’s right to moral integrity to have been infringed.
Not Every High-Pressure Working Environment Constitutes Workplace Harassment
The judgment also provides an opportunity to recall an important point for companies: not every demanding professional environment constitutes workplace harassment.
The existence of harassment must be assessed by considering the circumstances as a whole, including the repetition, seriousness and nature of the conduct, as well as whether it is objectively hostile, humiliating or degrading.
This is different from determining whether an employee had legitimate reasons to feel uncomfortable, pressured or affected by certain conduct.
An internal investigation should avoid both extremes: automatically treating every complaint as harassment or automatically assuming that every unsubstantiated complaint is false.
That is precisely the purpose of the investigation: to establish what happened and what legal consequences should follow.
The Consequences of the Case for the Company
The High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands declared the disciplinary dismissal null and void, requiring the company to reinstate the employee under her previous conditions and pay the corresponding back pay.
The judgment also awarded €7,501 in moral damages, an amount substantially lower than the €60,000 claimed by the employee.
The decision also included a dissenting opinion, reflecting the fact that the assessment of the employee’s conduct and the disciplinary response was not unanimous within the Court.
For companies, the outcome demonstrates that disciplinary action taken following an internal complaint may generate significantly greater legal and financial consequences than those the company initially intended to avoid.
How Should a Company Respond to a Workplace Harassment Complaint?
The main lesson from the case is not that companies should refrain from acting when they receive a complaint. Rather, they should respond through an orderly and legally coherent process.
The company should receive the complaint, preserve the relevant information and activate the appropriate internal procedure. The investigation should distinguish established facts from subjective assessments and determine whether there is actually conduct constituting harassment.
If indications subsequently arise that the complainant acted deliberately and falsely, that conduct should be assessed independently. The company must establish the falsity and its serious and culpable nature before taking disciplinary action.
Where there are also known circumstances relating to the employee’s health, the preventive dimension and potential psychosocial risks should be considered.
Finally, any disciplinary decision should be properly documented, particularly where it follows an internal complaint or report.
The Importance of Internal Policies and HR Training
Managing a harassment complaint should not begin when the conflict arises. Companies need clear procedures in place beforehand, establishing how Human Resources should respond, who should participate in an investigation and how its conclusions should be documented.
At Suárez de Vivero, we advise companies on the design and review of internal employment policies in Spain, including protocols, internal procedures and mechanisms for handling complaints and disciplinary measures.
We also provide employment law training for Human Resources teams covering dismissals, disciplinary measures, internal investigations, equality and litigation risk prevention.
In more complex situations, our Compliance and Ethical Conduct in Spain practice advises on whistleblowing channels, internal investigations and procedures for addressing potential misconduct.
An Unsubstantiated Complaint Is Not Automatically a False Complaint
The main conclusion companies should draw from this judgment is clear: investigating a harassment complaint and concluding that it has not been established is one thing; determining that the person who made the complaint has committed disciplinary misconduct by deliberately lying is another.
The latter requires additional evidence concerning the complainant’s conduct.
The judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands therefore provides an important warning for companies handling internal complaints: closing an investigation should not automatically result in disciplinary action against the complainant.
The company must be able to demonstrate that any disciplinary measure responds to serious and culpable misconduct, that the decision is proportionate and that it does not constitute retaliation for exercising employment rights.
At Suárez de Vivero, we advise national and international companies on workplace discrimination and harassment in Spain, internal investigations, disciplinary procedures, internal employment policies and employment litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions About False Workplace Harassment Complaints and Disciplinary Dismissal
Can a company dismiss an employee for making a false workplace harassment complaint?
Yes, in certain circumstances. The company must establish that there is disciplinary misconduct and that the employee acted seriously and culpably. The fact that the investigation does not confirm harassment is not sufficient on its own.
Does failure to prove harassment mean that the complaint was false?
No. Failure to establish harassment and consciously making false allegations are two different matters.
What must a company prove to dismiss an employee for a false complaint?
The company must have sufficient evidence to establish that the employee attributed facts they knew to be false and that the conduct constitutes serious and culpable misconduct capable of justifying disciplinary dismissal under Article 54 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute.
Does making a harassment complaint always protect an employee from dismissal?
No general immunity exists. However, an adverse employment decision taken in retaliation for an action aimed at asserting employment rights may breach the guarantee of indemnity.
Can a company investigate a harassment complaint that is ultimately not substantiated?
Yes. Companies can and, where appropriate under their internal procedures and preventive obligations, should investigate complaints they receive. An unsuccessful investigation does not automatically make the complaint false.
What happens if the complainant has mental health issues?
The company should also consider the preventive dimension where it is aware of circumstances that may be connected with health risks. The Occupational Risk Prevention Act 31/1995 establishes the employer’s duty to protect employee health and safety.
What compensation was awarded in the case analysed?
The High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands awarded €7,501 in moral damages, in addition to declaring the dismissal null and void and ordering reinstatement with the corresponding legal consequences.
