The isolated criterion published on October 17, 2025, is particularly relevant for companies, as it sets a precedent on how internal investigations should be conducted and disciplinary decisions made in cases of workplace sexual harassment. A properly documented procedure, supported by internal policies and applied with a gender perspective, can legally support a decision of employment termination and strengthen the organization's defense against potential challenges.
New Precedent on Workplace Sexual Harassment Highlights the Importance of Internal Investigations with a Gender Perspective. The isolated criterion published on October 17, 2025, is particularly relevant for companies, as it sets a precedent on how internal investigations should be conducted and disciplinary decisions made in cases of workplace sexual harassment. A properly documented procedure, supported by internal policies and applied with a gender perspective, can legally support a decision of employment termination and strengthen the organization's defense against potential challenges.
The Collegiate Court of the Thirty-Second Circuit ruled that the complaints of four medical interns, corroborated in an internal investigation and ratified in court, constituted sufficient evidence of workplace sexual harassment. It emphasized that the consistency and persistence of the testimonies established the credibility of the victims, without requiring full or documentary evidence, as the consistency of the accounts and the severity of the conduct were sufficient to justify the employment termination.
The ruling reflects how courts are seeking to balance the protection of victims of sexual harassment with respect for due process in the workplace, and evidences the growing incorporation of a gender perspective in judicial resolutions. The Collegiate Court of the Thirty-Second Circuit, based in Colima, resolved Direct Amparo 796/2023, filed by an IMSS worker dismissed for engaging in acts of sexual harassment.
The worker, who served as an Auxiliary in Medical Unit Administration and had union tenure, was dismissed in January 2023 following complaints filed by four medical interns performing their social service, who accused him of sexual harassment. The IMSS internal investigation concluded that the worker indeed committed the reported acts, thus determining that the contract termination was justified.
To this end, the IMSS applied its Procedure for the Attention, Processing, and Resolution of Labor Investigations at the National Level, as well as the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. However, the worker challenged the decision alleging violations of due process, arguing that he was not informed of the circumstances of time, manner, and place of the events, that no exculpatory witnesses were interviewed, and that his documentary and testimonial evidence was disregarded. The accused provided testimonies and written statements from other coworkers as evidence, intending to demonstrate that he always conducted himself with respect and had no prior complaints.
The plaintiff filed a labor lawsuit for unjustified dismissal, requesting reinstatement and payment of various benefits. The court, however, ruled to absolve the IMSS, considering the cause of termination for conduct analogous to sexual harassment proven. The conduct described by the victims included: insistence on going out via social media, comments about their body parts, unwanted physical contact, lifting one of them off the ground, taking photos without consent, and showing a knife in an intimidating manner.
Dissatisfied, the worker filed a direct amparo, arguing violations of his rights to a hearing and defense, including, among other arguments, the fact that the interns did not specify the circumstances of time, manner, and place in which the events occurred, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Federal Labor Law, which requires that the termination notice clearly state the alleged conduct and the date it was committed. The IMSS, in turn, filed an adhesive amparo defending the legality of the procedure.
The main argument of the Circuit Collegiate Court is that not all victims of sexual harassment can accurately recall the circumstances of manner, time, and place of the events, especially when it involves a repeated pattern of violence and not an isolated incident. In this sense, the Court determined that it is sufficient for the facts to be expressed concretely, so that the accused person has clarity about the charges and can adequately exercise their defense, and that the testimonies are consistent with each other.
The Court clarified that the standard of proof in cases of workplace sexual harassment is not as strict as in criminal matters, as it is not about proving crimes, but conduct within the workplace. While personal freedom is at stake in criminal matters, in labor matters it is enough to demonstrate indications that show an intrusion or affectation to the victim's rights to justify the termination.
The Collegiate Court held that the absence of questioning exculpatory witnesses in the IMSS internal investigation did not violate the right of defense, as the plaintiff was aware of the procedure, was timely notified, submitted writings, and offered evidence, which were dismissed for founded reasons. The court confirmed that the IMSS is empowered to dismiss such evidence because it considered them irrelevant; the fact that the worker conducted himself respectfully with other coworkers did not disprove the specific harassment accusations made by the victims.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the need to adopt a gender perspective when reviewing such matters, indicating that when gender-based sexual violence is alleged in workplaces, it is common to question the victims' statements based on gender stereotypes or prejudices, encouraging judges to eliminate the stereotypical burden when conducting the respective analysis.
Although the resolution gave rise to an isolated criterion, it is very relevant because it establishes three key points: 1. In cases of continued workplace sexual harassment, re
