20,000 euros for the harassed driver: the justice system comes down hard on the Moroccan consulate

Last April, Amir had refused the 55,000 euros in compensation offered by the Moroccan consulate in the Canary Islands to avoid a trial. The driver, who had filed a complaint against his employer for workplace harassment, also did not accept the possibility of resuming his position as a driver with a schedule of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. He was determined to go to trial to obtain compensation for the moral damage suffered. He ultimately prevailed. On November 10th, the court in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria ordered the Moroccan consulate to "cease the workplace harassment" of which Amir is a victim and to pay him 20,000 euros in compensation, considering that he has suffered "degrading treatment" and "threats of dismissal" from Consul Fatiha El Kamouri.

Amir has worked as an administrative employee at the Moroccan consulate in the Canary Islands since 2008. For fourteen years, he handled cashier duties, maintained the archives, welcomed Moroccan citizens, and played an important role in the social service, particularly in the identification of unaccompanied minors. Everything changed in September 2022 with the arrival of the new consul. In its ruling, the court recalled that the consul, "unilaterally, without express notification and without valid reason," first transformed Amir into the building’s concierge, then into her personal driver, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, forcing him to remain in the car. Faced with the worker’s complaints, "she finally agrees that he wait in the consulate premises, but exclusively on the fifth floor of the building, where his colleagues are not present and under the express order not to communicate with them," the decision states.

The judge also considers as proven the calls "at inappropriate hours" for Amir to bring the consul meals purchased at the supermarket or to pick up her daughters from their activities, "for anything she deemed appropriate." For these errands, "she did not give him any money," all expenses being borne by the worker. "The contempt was such that, although he told her that he was under medication and could not drive, she told him to ask his doctor to write a ’note’ stating that he could drive or, at the very least, to change his treatment, without any regard for the worker’s health or for the minimum conditions of work in dignity," the court specifies. An initial judgment rendered in December 2024 had already annulled the substantial modification of the working conditions and obliged the consulate to reintegrate Amir into his former position. But upon his return to work in February 2025, he was assigned to the fifth floor, isolated and without function, "thus continuing the psychological harassment." Amir provided seven videos proving this "lack of effective work."

A psychological report provided by the plaintiff shows that his symptoms, which include "the re-experiencing of traumatic events," "the avoidance of places and people that evoke the trauma" and mood disorders, are compatible with the experiences lived in the professional environment. According to this report, there is an "obvious link" between the psychological damage and the workplace harassment as the "main cause." "The described dynamics include actions that undermine the victim’s reputation or personal dignity, actions that hinder the exercise of his work, the manipulation of information and situations of inequality," the document states.

Furthermore, the report emphasizes that the harassment "considerably worsened" after Amir’s reintegration in February, with "excessive control (physical isolation and surveillance), blocking communication with the consul and the rest of his colleagues, and a significant workload." "The behaviors listed are so serious that it is reasonable to believe that the reason for his departure is this climate of harassment, which allows for the conclusion of a violation of fundamental rights and therefore the acceptance of the claim," the court states. The consulate can appeal this judgment before the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC).