From the "repeated conduct" requirement to a single act: effective judicial protection and the dynamic burden of proof regarding workplace harassment in Ecuador

Abstract

Workplace harassment rooted in the abuse of hierarchical power within the employment relationship is one of the most persistent forms of violation of human dignity in the productive sphere, and it acquires particular severity when exercised on grounds of gender. For decades, Ecuadorian legal doctrine and judicial practice conditioned the recognition of workplace harassment (mobbing) on proof of hostile conduct that was repeated and sustained over time, a requirement that operated as a procedural filter of exclusion and forced victims to endure an escalation of violence before being able to access state protection. This article analyzes, from a qualitative and doctrinal-legal approach, the transformation of that paradigm following the ratification of International Labour Organization Convention 190 and Judgment No. 99-22-IN/26 of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, which establishes the doctrine of the single act of extreme severity. The study further contrasts the static evidentiary regime of the General Organic Code of Procedures with the guarantee-based model of dynamic burdens of proof under the Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control, revealing a procedural fracture that pushes labor litigation toward constitutional jurisdiction. It concludes that effective judicial protection against workplace harassment requires moving beyond the chronological metric toward a qualitative assessment of harm, as well as harmonizing ordinary adjective legislation with current conventional and constitutional standards.