By Angelo Zambelli
Even if the employee cannot prove a unified persecutory intent sufficient to constitute mobbing, the employer may still be liable under Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code if it tolerates – even by negligence – a stressful and harmful work environment, given that Article 2087 protects the employee’s psychophysical integrity regardless of whether mobbing in its strict sense is established.
With judgement no. 31367 of 1 December 2025, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle regarding workplace harassment and health and safety disputes: the protection provided for in Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code does not depend on the existence of mobbing, understood as a systematic persecutory plan. Article 2087 requires employers to protect the physical and mental integrity of their employees, and liability may arise whenever employers allow, even by negligence, a stressful, harmful or degrading working environment to persist.
The case originated from a claim filed by an employee who alleged to have been the victim of harassment and bullying in the workplace, which had caused him serious psychological and physical harm. The employee sought compensation for the damages suffered.
The Court of Appeal of Ancona overturned the first instance ruling and rejected the claim, finding that there was no evidence of systematic and continuous behaviour of abuse, intimidation or isolation aimed at marginalising the employee. The Court of Appeal held that the employer’s conduct, although sometimes contrary to basic rules of good manners, had been framed as functional to the needs of the service and aimed at remedying the employee’s lacks, and that the employee’s psychosomatic conditions were not causally linked to specific acts of mobbing.
The employee appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal’s ruling was in conflict with the established case law, which does not require a persecutory plan to recognise the employer’s liability. According to the employee, the Court of Appeal failed to take into account that an employer who acts disrespectfully or in violation of employees’ protection rules may engage in harassing behaviour even in the absence of a unified strategy of mobbing. The employee also criticised the insufficient consideration given to medical documentation describing work-related psychological and psychosomatic disorders attributed to workplace harassment.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling no. 31367/2025, reiterated that Article 2087 protects employees regardless of whether the conduct constitutes mobbing in the technical sense. Responsibility arises whenever harmful behaviours – whether individually or collectively considered – create a stressful or harmful work environment, and the employer tolerates such a condition, even inadvertently. The Court also pointed out that the same protection extends to forms of “attenuated mobbing,” such as straining, where a single act, even if not repeated, is sufficient to create a harmful working environment and remains punishable under Article 2087.
In the case under exam, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal’s decision had failed to apply these established principles. Even in the absence of a persecutory intent linking the alleged acts, the conduct should have been assessed in terms of a possible violation of Article 2087, given the potential impact on the employee’s fundamental interests, which are protected at the highest level of the legal system.
Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-House Counsel
Practical Points
- Employer liability under Article 2087 may arise even in the absence of mobbing, where the employer tolerates – even negligently – a stressful or harmful work environment impacting the employee’s psychophysical integrity.
- Conduct not amounting to systematic harassment may still constitute straining or other attenuated forms of workplace harassment and therefore expose the employer to liability under Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code.