Technical Indeterminacy of Workplace Harassment and Proportionality as a Constitutional Safeguard

Abstract

This study examined how the technical indeterminacy of workplace harassment under Ecuador’s Organic Law on Public Service affects the application of the constitutional principle of proportionality. The research addressed the lack of normative criteria connecting the seriousness and harmfulness of conduct with disciplinary sanctions, particularly in cases involving symbolic harm and digital violence. A qualitative legal approach was adopted, using hermeneutic, systematic, and comparative methods, analysis of constitutional case law, and the proportionality test. The findings indicated that, although the Constitutional Court resolved the contradiction between single acts and repeated conduct, the relationship between the legal characterization of harassment, its seriousness, and the applicable sanction remains insufficiently defined. Furthermore, Article 13 of Ministerial Agreement MDT-2025-093 retains repetition as a condition for classifying certain conduct as serious, creating difficulties when a single act causes significant harm. The disciplinary regime pursues a legitimate aim and is suitable for protecting workers, but presents limitations concerning necessity and proportionality in the strict sense. The study concludes that the legal framework requires criteria for grading disciplinary responses based on harm, context, and proven responsibility, in order to ensure predictable and reasoned decisions consistent with legal certainty and public servants’ employment stability.