Tensions at work, or even mobbing, can have serious repercussions on employees’ health and team dynamics.

However, a recent decision by the Federal Court clarifies the limits of protection against dismissal: when incapacity for work stems exclusively from the job or the professional environment, the protection provided by the Code of Obligations does not automatically apply.

This clarification is useful for both employers and employees in an area where human and legal issues intersect.

In its ruling of March 26, 2024 (1C_595/2023), the Federal Court ruled that an employee whose incapacity to work is solely related to their position or professional environment does not automatically benefit from the protection against dismissal provided for in Article 336c of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

In other words, if an incapacity arises from a professional conflict or a situation of mobbing, but the person remains capable of performing another job in a different context, the dismissal may be considered valid.

This distinction between “job-related” incapacity and “general” incapacity clarifies the scope of legal protection. However, the Court reiterates the duty to protect the employee’s personality (Art. 328 CO), the violation of which could render a dismissal unfair.

Reference:
Federal Court, judgment 1C_595/2023 of 26 March 2024

Mobbing in the workplace is not just a matter of atmosphere or stress: it can have direct legal consequences for both employees and employers.

A recent decision by the Federal Court perfectly illustrates the importance of external investigations in assessing a dismissal linked to reports of psychological harassment.

In a recent ruling, an employee who reported mobbing behaviour was dismissed.

The central question is how far the employer must go to investigate and protect the employee before dismissal is considered justified.

An employee was dismissed after reporting bullying behaviour in her department. She contested the dismissal, arguing that the firm had not conducted a sufficient internal investigation to clarify the situation.

The Federal Court upheld the cantonal decision, considering that the external administrative investigation had established a breach of trust that justified the dismissal.

• An external administrative investigation may be sufficient if it reliably establishes the facts.
• The employer must take appropriate action in response to reports of harassment.
• A breach of trust is valid grounds for dismissal if adequate protective measures have been taken.

Reference:
Federal Court, judgment 1C_171/2024 of 11 April 2025

Psychological violence, particularly in the context of domestic relationships, can have serious consequences for the mental health and safety of victims. Federal Supreme Court ruling ATF 150 II 465 of 3 June 2024 reiterates that repeated threats, including threats of suicide, constitute an attack on psychological integrity and entitle victims to immediate assistance, even in the absence of criminal proceedings.

In this case, a woman faced repeated suicide threats from her partner after expressing her desire to separate. These threats had a significant psychological impact on her and created a dangerous situation for her and her children, prompting her to seek emergency accommodation.

The competent cantonal authority initially rejected her request, considering that the legal conditions for receiving immediate assistance under the LAVI were not met.

The case was brought before the Federal Court, which recognised that the repeated threats constituted a form of psychological violence, justifying the provision of emergency accommodation and immediate assistance to victims.

The Federal Court has confirmed that repeated threats of suicide constitute an attack on psychological integrity and justify the granting of immediate assistance under the Victims Support Act (LAVI), even if no criminal proceedings are underway.

The ruling emphasises that victims are entitled to have the costs of emergency accommodation covered in order to protect their safety and that of their children.

According to Art. 1 para. 1 LAVI, any person who has suffered direct harm to their physical, psychological or sexual integrity as a result of a criminal offence is entitled to the support provided for by law.

The evidence requirements vary depending on the type and timing of the assistance requested:

• For immediate assistance, it is sufficient that the offence is plausible on the basis of objective evidence.
• In cases of coercion (Art. 181 of the Swiss Criminal Code), the harm to psychological integrity must be of a certain intensity; minor harm is not sufficient.

The decisive factor is that the harm gives rise to a legitimate need to resort to the assistance and protection rights provided for in the LAVI.

In this case, the lower court had found that the wife had suffered psychological harm, but that this was not sufficient to recognise her status as a victim, due to a lack of objective evidence or subjective plausibility.

Reference:
ATF 150 II 465 of 3 June 2024