An operational assistant at Cascais Hospital sexually harassed and groped a cleaning employee during work hours. The man was dismissed for just cause, yet procedural irregularities led the judiciary to overturn the healthcare unit’s decision, which appealed to the Lisbon Court of Appeal. However, this judicial body again sided with the worker.
The incident dates back to August 12, 2024. Between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., the operational assistant approached the employee at work, saying, “Let’s go to the back, your husband doesn’t need to know.” As the woman bent down to change a trash bag, the man placed his arm between her arm and torso and “groped her breast.” “What?!”, the victim complained, attempting to move away.
The worker fled toward the “dirty room,” but the colleague followed her there, closing the door. He positioned himself between the exit and the cleaning operator, stating, “Ah, I’m already hard.” The woman escaped to the emergency room “in panic” and reported the incident to her superior. She later filed a complaint with the Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR).
“A cleaning team member suffered physical and verbal sexual harassment. She had previously suffered harassment from the same person, but only verbal. After the harassment, the HC colleague followed the cleaning worker to the dirty room. A complaint was filed with the GNR,” reads the incident report included in the case file.
In October that year, the hospital initiated “a disciplinary procedure with the intent to dismiss for just cause” against the operational assistant, employed since January 2017. However, the man appealed to the Cascais Labor Court, arguing that the accusations against him were false and his right to defense violated, as his response to the notice of misconduct was disregarded for being received after the ten working days allowed, and the three witnesses he named were not heard.
“The petitioner was never subject to any disciplinary proceedings, never received any formal or informal warning, received several praises from patients and their families, and always collaborated with colleagues and superiors. In his role as an operational assistant, the petitioner always demonstrated professionalism in contact with patients and families and was available to assist colleagues,” the document stated, highlighting his “impeccable reputation among colleagues, supervisors, and patients, recognized for his competence, dedication, and humanity in dealing with everyone.”
The worker claimed it was the cleaning employee “who frequently sought his presence.”
The staff member reported that the colleague had a “fixed work position assigned to the General Emergency of the Hospital” but “frequently, without justification, absented herself from her post, going to the Ambulatory Emergency area, which was not assigned to her, leaving hygiene tasks undone and neglecting cleaning and safety procedures.”
“Due to the nature of his duties and responsibilities, the petitioner frequently had to alert her about these unjustified absences, pointing out unfinished tasks and reminding her of the importance of hygiene procedures. This required professional intervention from the petitioner caused discontent on BB’s part and animosity towards the petitioner,” he stated.
The operational assistant also noted that, on that day, “the dirty room had no trash bags properly placed.” He approached the area, found the colleague, and “politely pointed out the procedural oversight.”
He claimed, too, that “BB frequently sought the petitioner’s presence, purposely going to the Ambulatory Emergency when she knew he was there,” and would accompany him “voluntarily during his smoke breaks, maintaining a close attitude.”
Cascais Hospital appealed the dismissal suspension to the Lisbon Court of Appeal, but the decision remained unchanged.
“By disregarding the response to the notice of misconduct, the employer prevented the worker from exercising his right of defense, stopping the process instructor from assessing the facts brought by him, and the reasoning he presented. This must be considered. […] By not attending to the response to the notice of misconduct, the employer also failed to address the proof indicated there,” Judge Paula Santos stated in the July 5 decision.
The judge, therefore, determined “the nullity of the disciplinary procedure for not having the appellant considered the response to the notice of misconduct and the witnesses presented by the worker.”
“As the disciplinary procedure is invalid, concluding a serious likelihood of the unfairness of the dismissal, it must, as the first instance did, suspend the dismissal, requiring the respondent to maintain the petitioner in his job without loss of seniority or status,” the judge decreed.
