Workplace harassment – employer duties under

A mid-sized Warsaw technology company receives a written complaint. A junior developer alleges systematic humiliation by her team lead – repeated public ridicule, exclusion from meetings, and threats of dismissal. The HR manager's first instinct is to treat this as a personality conflict. That instinct is legally dangerous. Under Polish labour law, the moment a credible harassment complaint lands on the employer's desk, a set of mandatory obligations is triggered. Ignoring them – or handling them informally – exposes the company to personal liability claims, court-ordered compensation, and reputational damage that is difficult to reverse.

Polish labour law imposes direct obligations on every employer to prevent and respond to workplace harassment, covering both mobbing (sustained psychological harassment) and sexual harassment under the Kodeks pracy (Labour Code). An employer who fails to implement an internal anti-harassment policy, investigate a complaint within a reasonable timeframe, or protect a victim from retaliation faces compensation claims with no statutory ceiling. The obligation applies regardless of company size, sector, or the nationality of the parties involved.

This page sets out the full compliance framework: the legal instruments available to employers, the procedural steps for handling complaints, the cross-border issues that arise for foreign investors, and a practical checklist for self-assessment. Each section is designed to give your in-house team – or your board – a clear picture of where liability begins and what it takes to eliminate it.

What does Polish law actually require employers to do about harassment?

The Labour Code places a positive duty on every employer to counteract mobbing. This is not a best-practice recommendation. It is a statutory obligation enforced by the Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy (National Labour Inspectorate, PIP) and adjudicated by labour courts. The Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court of Poland) has confirmed that an employer's failure to act on known harassment constitutes an independent basis for liability, separate from any claim against the harasser personally.

Three concrete duties follow from this framework. First, the employer must implement preventive measures before any complaint arises – typically an internal anti-harassment policy and regular training. Second, the employer must establish a complaints procedure that allows employees to report harassment without fear of retaliation. Third, once a complaint is received, the employer must investigate it promptly and document every step. The investigation should conclude within 30 days where possible, though the Labour Code does not prescribe a hard deadline for internal proceedings.

Sexual harassment is treated as a separate category under the Labour Code's equal treatment provisions. Here the employer's liability is triggered as soon as the employer knew – or should have known – about the conduct and failed to act. The Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (Commissioner for Human Rights) has consistently highlighted this "knew or should have known" standard as the point at which passive employers become legally exposed. Compensation for sexual harassment is subject to a floor of one month's salary but has no upper ceiling.

One common misconception deserves attention. Many employers believe that having a written policy on file is sufficient. Courts have repeatedly found otherwise. A policy that is not communicated to employees, not updated after organisational changes, or not backed by a functioning complaints channel provides no meaningful legal protection. The document must be alive – not archived.

How should an employer structure the internal investigation process?

When a harassment complaint is filed, the employer's response within the first 72 hours is critical. Delay signals either indifference or complicity, and both can be used against the employer in subsequent litigation. The first step is to acknowledge the complaint in writing, confirm confidentiality, and identify who will lead the investigation. The investigator must have no conflict of interest with either party.

We secured a formal settlement exceeding PLN 180,000 for an employee client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025), after the employer's investigation was found to be procedurally defective – the appointed investigator had a direct reporting line to the accused manager. That structural flaw invalidated the entire process in the eyes of the labour court.

The investigation itself should follow a structured sequence. Begin with a written statement from the complainant. Then interview the accused, separately and without the complainant present. Gather documentary evidence – emails, messaging logs, project records, meeting minutes. Interview any witnesses identified by either party. Finally, prepare a written findings report with a clear recommendation.

Acknowledge the complaint in writing within 3 business days
Appoint an independent investigator or investigation committee
Separate the parties during the investigation where operationally feasible
Complete the investigation and issue a written report within 30 days
Communicate the outcome to the complainant and, where appropriate, impose disciplinary measures

Retaliation against the complainant during or after the investigation is an independent legal violation. An employee who is dismissed, demoted, or otherwise disadvantaged after filing a harassment complaint is presumed to have been victimised. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove the adverse action was unrelated. This reversal of the burden of proof is one of the most underestimated risks in Polish employment litigation.

Documentation discipline is not optional. Every communication, every interview note, and every decision must be recorded and retained. Labour claims can be brought up to three years after the employment relationship ends. Records created at the time of the incident are far more persuasive than reconstructed accounts prepared for litigation.

Your company's specific situation – its size, sector, and existing HR infrastructure – determines how exposed it currently is. An unreviewed policy or an untested complaints channel can foreclose your primary defence in any future claim.

If your organisation has received a harassment complaint or has not reviewed its anti-harassment procedures in the past 12 months, we will audit your current framework, identify gaps, and implement a legally sound complaints process: info@kordeckipartners.com.

What are the financial consequences of non-compliance?

Polish law provides two distinct compensation tracks for harassment victims, and employers frequently underestimate the cumulative exposure. The first track covers material damage – lost earnings, medical costs, and career losses caused by the harassment or by retaliatory dismissal. The second track covers non-material damage (pain and suffering), which courts have awarded in amounts ranging from PLN 20,000 to over PLN 200,000 in documented cases.

There is no statutory cap on either category. This distinguishes Polish harassment liability from some other European jurisdictions where compensation ceilings apply. A single well-documented claim, brought by an employee who suffered a documented psychological breakdown following sustained mobbing, can result in a total award that exceeds the annual salary budget of a small business.

The National Labour Inspectorate has additional enforcement tools. It can issue binding recommendations, impose fines of up to PLN 30,000 per violation, and refer cases to the public prosecutor where criminal conduct is involved. Inspectors conduct unannounced workplace audits, and a complaint filed with PIP typically triggers a visit within 30 days. The inspector will request the anti-harassment policy, evidence of employee training, and records of any prior complaints.

Beyond direct financial liability, non-compliance carries secondary costs. Employment litigation in Poland is public. Court judgments are published in accessible registries. A finding of employer liability for harassment – particularly in a high-profile sector like technology, finance, or professional services – can affect recruitment, client relationships, and ESG ratings. For companies subject to the Ustawa o sygnalistach (Whistleblower Protection Act), a failure to protect a harassment complainant who also qualifies as a whistleblower doubles the exposure. The whistleblower protection framework under Polish law provides for compensation of at least six months' salary for unlawful retaliation.

For foreign investors, there is an additional dimension. A harassment finding at a Polish subsidiary can trigger group-level reporting obligations under parent-country ESG or corporate governance frameworks. What begins as a local HR dispute can escalate to a boardroom issue in Frankfurt, Amsterdam, or London within weeks.

How do cross-border and posted-worker situations affect harassment obligations?

Foreign employers posting workers to Poland must apply Polish working conditions from day one of the posting. This includes the full anti-harassment framework under the Labour Code. There is no exemption for short-term assignments or for workers employed under a foreign contract. The obligation attaches to the work performed on Polish territory, not to the employment relationship's governing law.

For companies managing posted workers – whether from the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, or other EU member states – the A1 certificate process and social security coordination are well-documented. Less well-documented is the fact that posted workers are entitled to the same harassment protections as locally hired employees. Our insight on posted workers from the Czech Republic to Poland and A1 certificates covers the administrative framework in detail. The harassment compliance layer sits on top of that framework and must be addressed separately.

We also advised a manufacturing client in Lower Silesia (spring 2026) on restructuring its HR complaint channels to cover both local employees and a rotating group of posted workers from three EU countries. The key challenge was language access – the complaints procedure was available only in Polish, which effectively denied posted workers a meaningful route to report harassment. Providing the policy and complaints form in at least the language of the country of origin is not a legal requirement under current Polish law, but courts have treated language barriers as evidence of systemic indifference.

For employers using praca tymczasowa (agency work), the obligation to prevent harassment is shared between the user employer and the temporary work agency. In practice, the user employer carries the greater exposure because it controls the day-to-day working environment. The agency's contractual disclaimer does not transfer liability. This structure also intersects with the posted workers from Luxembourg to Poland and A1 certificates framework when the agency operates cross-border.

Non-EU employers hiring in Poland – including those sponsoring employees under a work permit Poland or an EU Blue Card – must be aware that permit-holding employees have the same harassment protections as Polish nationals. A foreign employee whose work permit is tied to a specific employer is particularly vulnerable to retaliatory conduct. Courts have treated permit dependency as an aggravating factor when assessing compensation for harassment.

Cross-border HR structures create compliance blind spots that are difficult to identify without a systematic review. A harassment claim arising from a posting arrangement or an agency work relationship often involves multiple legal systems simultaneously.

To receive an expert assessment of your cross-border employment structure and its harassment compliance gaps, contact info@kordeckipartners.com. Our team will map the applicable obligations, identify the highest-risk exposures, and implement the necessary procedural safeguards.

What practical steps should employers take right now?

Preventive action is always cheaper than litigation. The legal framework does not reward employers who act only after a complaint is filed. Courts have consistently held that the absence of a functioning anti-harassment system – not merely the absence of a specific incident – is itself a compliance failure. An employer who can demonstrate that it had robust preventive measures in place before the alleged harassment occurred is in a fundamentally different legal position from one that scrambles to draft a policy after a claim is served.

The self-assessment checklist below covers the minimum requirements. Each item corresponds to a question a labour court or PIP inspector is likely to ask.

Is there a written anti-harassment policy that has been communicated to all employees in the past 12 months?
Does the policy cover both mobbing and sexual harassment, with clear definitions aligned to the Labour Code?
Is there a designated, confidential channel for submitting harassment complaints?
Have managers and HR staff received documented training on identifying and responding to harassment?
Is there a written procedure for investigating complaints, including timelines, confidentiality rules, and anti-retaliation protections?

Trade secret and confidentiality obligations can intersect with harassment investigations in unexpected ways. When a harassment complaint involves access to sensitive business information – for example, where the accused holds a key position and the investigation requires reviewing confidential communications – employers must balance their duty to investigate with their obligations under trade secret law. Our analysis of trade secret protection strategies under Polish law addresses this intersection in practical terms.

Three business scenarios illustrate where the framework most often breaks down. A manufacturing company with 400 employees and a single HR generalist has a written policy but no trained investigator – the first complaint it receives will expose the gap immediately. An IT company with 80 employees treats harassment as a matter for the founding team to handle informally – the absence of a documented process is itself a liability. A foreign investor entering Poland through a newly established subsidiary assumes that the parent company's global code of conduct satisfies local requirements – it does not without active localisation and employee communication.

The whistleblower Poland framework adds a further layer. Under the Whistleblower Protection Act, an employee who reports harassment through internal channels may simultaneously qualify as a protected whistleblower if the conduct they are reporting also involves a breach of law. Employers must ensure their complaints procedure is integrated with their whistleblower reporting channel – or at minimum, that there is a clear referral pathway between the two. Failure to do so can result in a harassment complainant receiving whistleblower protections that the employer was not prepared to manage.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does an employee have to bring a harassment claim in Poland?

A: Under Polish labour law, a claim for compensation related to mobbing must be brought within three years of the date the employee became aware of the damage suffered. For claims related to termination of employment connected to harassment, a separate three-year limitation period applies from the date of termination. These periods run independently, so an employer may face claims on both tracks simultaneously. Retaining investigation records and policy documents for at least five years is advisable.

Q: Does a small company with fewer than 20 employees need a formal anti-harassment policy?

A: Yes. The Labour Code's obligation to counteract mobbing applies to every employer regardless of headcount. There is a common misconception that small businesses are exempt from formal policy requirements. They are not. The form of the policy may be simpler, but the substance – definitions, complaint channel, investigation procedure, anti-retaliation protection – must be present. A labour court will not treat company size as a mitigating factor when awarding compensation to a harassment victim.

Q: What does a harassment investigation typically cost, and how long does it take?

A: An internal investigation conducted by a qualified employment lawyer Warsaw typically takes between two and six weeks, depending on the number of witnesses and the complexity of the evidence. Legal fees for a full investigation and report range from PLN 8,000 to PLN 30,000 depending on the case. This compares favourably with the cost of defending a labour court claim, which – including legal representation, court fees, and potential compensation – regularly exceeds PLN 100,000. Early investment in a properly conducted investigation is the most cost-effective risk management tool available.

KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to employment law, workplace investigations, and HR compliance. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams navigating the full range of employment obligations – from anti-harassment frameworks and whistleblower compliance to work permits, posted worker regulations, and cross-border restructuring. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.