Sexual harassment in the workplace: risks, responsibilities and prevention for companies

In organizations where corporate culture values respect and human dignity, sexual harassment in the workplace is not only a violation of individual rights but also a reputational, financial, and litigation risk for the company. A recent decision by the Third Region Labor Court (TRT‑3) upheld a R$ 5,000 moral damages award against a telemarketing company in favor of an attendant who alleged harassment by her supervisor, including inappropriate physical contact and erotic comments. This case illustrates the importance of adopting strict prevention policies, credible investigation procedures, and a zero‑tolerance culture.

For managers and business owners, understanding not only legal risk but also effective governance practices in this area is essential. This article examines the legal foundations, practical implications, and offers guidelines for a preventive strategy, using accessible language suitable for business decision makers.

Legal basis for employer responsibility

Under labor law, a company is held objectively liable for acts committed by its agents and hierarchical superiors when they harm the rights of an employee. This means that even if the company did not directly commit the harassing act, it may still be held liable for omission or failure to supervise. Court decisions like that of TRT‑3 acknowledge this duty of care.

Moral damages serve both compensatory and deterrent functions. In the case under review, the judge considered the severity of the act, the violation of dignity and intimacy, and the employee’s vulnerability, setting the damages at R$ 5,000. The reviewing court affirmed that value, indicating that it did not find disproportionality. The absence of formal records or prior complaints does not invalidate the harassment claim, as these behaviors often occur covertly and victims may fear retaliation. The court emphasized that the employer cannot shift to the victim the burden of pointing out management flaws.

The Brazilian Constitution protects dignity, honor and privacy, and in labor relations the employer must ensure the physical and psychological integrity of employees by taking preventive measures and acting with diligence. Labor legislation (CLT) and jurisprudence interpret this duty as covering harassment practices. Further, the Anti‑Discrimination Law (Law 9.029/95) forbids discriminatory conduct, which may overlap with harassment linked to gender, sexual orientation or vulnerability. The 2017 Labor Reform (Law 13.467/2017) reinforced expectations of respectful work environments and authorizes internal policies providing reporting channels and protection.

Practical impacts on companies and leadership

Beyond payment of damages, a company may incur attorney fees, court costs, administrative fines, and extra indemnities depending on the severity and public impact of the case. Institutional damage is also serious: harassment allegations harm brand image, impact employee engagement and draw pressure from stakeholders and media.

Workplaces tolerating harassment tend to suffer decreased motivation, increased absences and higher turnover — with cumulative hidden costs that may exceed direct litigation expenses.

Because harassment often leaves little physical evidence and occurs informally, companies lacking internal reporting systems, investigative protocols and evidence preservation tools are vulnerable. Recognizing this evidentiary gap, employers should structure preventive policies and protocols to support fair investigations.

Effective reporting channels (such as an internal complaint line or ombuds service) must be credible, confidential and safe. Investigations should be impartial, timely and protect both complainants and respondents. External assistance may be warranted in serious or complex cases.

Best preventive practices in the corporate environment

Corporate culture is pivotal. Formal compliance is insufficient if leaders don’t internalize zero tolerance. Recommended measures include:

drafting clear anti‑harassment policies and integrating them into the code of conduct;

training managers and employees on appropriate behavior, recognition of harassment, and shared responsibility;

promoting internal awareness campaigns emphasizing reporting channels and commitments against retaliation;

structuring investigation procedures with trained personnel, fixed timelines and external support when necessary;

preserving evidence (emails, messages, recordings, documents) and applying precautionary measures like temporary relief from duties during investigation;

defining disciplinary rules proportionate to misconduct, always ensuring due process.

These practices not only mitigate legal risks, but strengthen corporate ethics, employee trust and long‑term sustainability.

Case study: TRT‑3 decision and managerial lessons

In the recent case, the 6th Chamber of TRT‑3 confirmed a R$ 5,000 moral damages award to an attendant who alleged harassment by her supervisor involving unwanted physical contact and erotic comments. The lower court had already held that absence of formal complaint did not refute the claim, especially when fear of exposure or job insecurity is present. This decision reinforces key managerial lessons: that courts accept that harassment often occurs covertly, that employers cannot demand evidentiary perfection from victims, and that lack of internal safeguards amplifies company liability.

Firms lacking internal policies, reporting channels or investigations are more legally vulnerable—even if they believe the evidence is weak.

When to seek specialized legal counsel

While many companies have in‑house legal teams, harassment cases require independent, specialized perspective: assessing risk, structuring impartial investigations, handling mediation or litigation, and drafting policy documents. Especially when there is initial evidence or formal complaint, retaining specialized labor and compliance counsel is prudent.

Proactive legal support can review internal codes, train teams, adapt procedures and structurally reduce litigation risk. Internal audits and periodic reviews aligned with jurisprudence and best practices should be considered.

Protecting people is protecting business

Business leaders should view tackling sexual harassment not as a compliance burden but as integral to responsible governance and sustainable value. The recent TRT‑3 decision underscores that courts hold companies liable not only for acts, but for failing to create safe work environments. Adopting clear policies, secure reporting, rigorous investigations and a zero‑tolerance culture substantially diminishes litigation risk, preserves reputation and fosters employee trust. If your company seeks legal support to design prevention programs, review policies or respond to complaints, engaging specialized counsel is a prudent step toward responsible and compliant operations.