The employee, off shift that day, had been in the store with his partner. In front of the cold cuts refrigerators, he testified, he was suddenly and inappropriately gestured at by his supervisor. The hand that touched him was accompanied by a characteristic gesture of silence and shortly afterwards by a whisper of “I got it from behind, is it allowed from the front?” The incident did not occur in a secluded spot, but in front of two witnesses: his partner and a colleague.

For him, the event multiplied his sense of shame and humiliation as it unfolded in public view. The lawsuit he filed at the Municipal Court of First Instance of Rhodes is not limited to this particular scene. Rather, it describes a pattern of conduct that preceded it and created a workplace climate that was intimidating and hostile. Two months earlier, in February, he had received a cell phone message with vulgar sexual content from the same man. The crude phraseology is recorded verbatim in the case file and, as noted, was the employee’s first clear indication that the power relationship in the workplace had turned into a means of insult and pressure.

After the April incident, he decided to speak out. On April 26, he sent an email to senior company executives, describing in detail what had happened. He repeatedly requested security camera footage, which he said covered the area of the store where the harassment occurred. Despite his efforts, he never received it. This denial led him to believe that the company was unwilling to investigate the matter meaningfully. The same thing happened, he says, when he requested official address information from the supervisor so he could use it for his legal recourse.

According to the newspaper Demokratiki of Rhodes, on May 2, 2024, he appealed to the Rhodes Labour Inspectorate. There, a labor dispute report was drawn up, and on June 21, the conclusion was issued under file number 345298. In the document, which is quoted in full in the file, a strict recommendation is made to the employer to comply with the new institutional framework for dealing with violence and harassment in the workplace and to take measures to protect employees. For the worker, it was the first time he had seen his complaint receive an institutional response, which encouraged him to continue his struggle. In the meantime, he had been informed that the supervisor had left the company on his own initiative. The resignation was confirmed in a memo filed by the management in May. Nevertheless, for the employee, the resignation did not eliminate the insult.

As he points out in his lawsuit, he had already felt mentally devastated, humiliated in front of his partner and co-worker, and with his dignity and image in the workplace wounded. His claim was not only moral but also legal: he was seeking compensation for the moral damage he had suffered. The case file contains extensive references to the legal framework. Article 337 of the Criminal Code, which deals with offences against sexual dignity, is discussed in detail, with references to decisions of the Supreme Court. It is clarified that even a gesture or a phrase, without a full sexual act, can be considered a lewd act if it brutally offends the dignity of another. At the same time, Articles 57, 59, 914, and 932 of the Civil Code are invoked, which protect personality and provide for compensation in the event of unlawful and culpable offence.

The case law cited reinforces the view that personality is an absolute good and that its violation constitutes a special form of tort, regardless of whether there is a criminal conviction.Of particular interest is the reference to the reversal of the burden of proof in cases of sexual harassment. Under the current legal framework, when an employee complains of such conduct, it is sufficient to allege its existence; the burden shifts to the employer or the complainant to prove that there was no violation. This is a critical provision that aims to protect victims from the inability to substantiate with evidence conduct that often manifests itself without witnesses or recordings.

The lawsuit also describes the psychological consequences. The plaintiff speaks of loss of peace of mind, disruption of his personal and family life, terror and anxiety that replaced the tranquility of his daily life. The amount claimed, EUR 4 940, is described as reasonable and proportionate, with the aim not of enrichment but of moral consolation. As noted, monetary compensation for moral damages has a balancing function: it is intended to relieve the victim and restore, at least in part, his mental equilibrium.

The case reached the hearing and the Rhodes Court of First Instance issued its judgment on 3 September 2025. The court ruled that there was indeed an insult to the employee’s personality and ordered his former supervisor to pay compensation of 800 euros. The amount was less than what he had requested, but the significance of the decision went beyond the numbers. For the first time in a court judgment, it was recognized that a male employee had been a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, that his dignity had been violated and that he was entitled to restitution.