Stressful Work Environment: When Compensation Is Due Under Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code
In its recent order no. 20005/2026, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation provides a landmark interpretation of Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code. The Court affirms that the employer’s duty of care extends beyond formal mobbing to encompass any conduct creating a stressful and health-damaging work environment. This article analyzes the legal implications of this ruling for corporate risk management and the employer's burden of proof in workplace liability claims.
The employer’s duty of protection, pursuant to Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code, is not limited to cases of mobbing; it extends to any conduct detrimental to the serenity and psychophysical health of an employee. In order no. 20005 of June 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld a claim for damages by an employee subjected to a severe work-related distress, clarifying the scope of employer liability even in the absence of systematic persecutory intent.
The case and the regulatory framework
The matter arose from an appeal filed by a company under extraordinary administration against a lower court ruling that had ordered the payment of compensation for differential biological damage to one of its employees. In the first instance, the court had ruled out the existence of mobbing, as it found no evidence of the repetitive and systematic vexatious acts typical of such a claim.
However, the court had established that the employee had been subjected to multiple disciplinary actions that proved to be unfounded or pretextual. Furthermore, the employee had been assigned tasks incompatible with their physical condition, despite having been previously deemed unfit. This environment resulted in severe stress and psychological distress, manifesting in documented medical conditions.
The legal issue examined
The appellant challenged the ruling, alleging procedural errors, including an overreach of authority by the trial judge for awarding damages despite the absence of a specific claim for mobbing or for the illegitimacy of the individual disciplinary measures.
The core of the debate focused on the interpretation of Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code and the burden of proof. The company argued that the duty of prevention does not constitute strict liability and that there was insufficient evidence of a causal link between the employer’s conduct and the alleged damage, as no specific safety regulations had been identified as violated.
The court's decision and the principle of law
The Labor Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, asserting that in interpreting a claim, the trial judge must look to the substantive content of the demand rather than the literal wording of the pleadings.
The Supreme Court established a significant principle of law: an employer is required to adopt all necessary measures to protect the physical integrity and moral personality of the employee. This protection—under Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code—encompasses not only mobbing in the strict sense but also any conduct that, while lacking specific persecutory intent or a plurality of vexatious actions, is objectively capable of creating a stressful work environment detrimental to health.
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that in disputes involving compensation for occupational damage, it is unnecessary for the employee to cite specific technical regulations that have been breached. It is sufficient to allege the existence of a hazardous condition within the work organization and the causal link to the damage suffered. Conversely, the burden of proof rests with the employer to demonstrate that all possible measures were taken to prevent the prejudice.
Operational and practical implications
This ruling reinforces the jurisprudential trend aimed at emphasizing the employer’s duty of protection in a broader and more substantive dimension. For companies, the risk of litigation linked to a "stressful work environment" has become a critical variable to monitor, regardless of whether a case for documented mobbing can be established.
The decision underscores that personnel management—particularly in cases involving certified physical limitations or frequent disciplinary sanctions—must be conducted with the utmost fairness and caution. This is essential to ensure that organizational decisions do not result in a violation of health and safety obligations, which would expose the company to claims for non-pecuniary damages.
