A senior compliance officer at Ferrocarril Metropolità de Barcelona was dismissed after a court found credible evidence of psychological harassment against a subordinate. Although she had official whistleblower status, the court ruled that the dismissal was justified on independent disciplinary grounds.
Ferrocarril Metropolità de Barcelona (FMB) dismissed a senior executive with official whistleblower protection after a Barcelona court found that the company had proven serious misconduct unrelated to her protected disclosures. The court’s decision, detailed in sentencia 197/2026 from the Tribunal de Instancia de Barcelona, rested on a documented disciplinary cause, not her whistleblowing activities.
The executive had led FMB’s Bon Govern division since 2006, overseeing compliance and transparency while also handling data protection. The Oficina Antifraude de Cataluña recognized her as a protected informant in May 2024. Her status was linked to a separate internal investigation she had managed into allegations against other company officials. Under Spain’s Ley 2/2023, whistleblowers are protected from reprisals, but employers may take disciplinary action if they prove the grounds are independent and substantiated.
Her dismissal followed a formal complaint from a subordinate in September 2024. The employee reported that FMB had stripped him of responsibilities and reassigned him under lower-ranked colleagues, where he received tasks below his professional level. He also described contradictory instructions and close monitoring, with other managers copied on critical emails. The court confirmed these details after reviewing the internal investigation and timeline.
FMB temporarily removed the executive from her role while continuing to pay her salary during the investigation. An internal report found credible evidence of psychological harassment, prompting disciplinary proceedings. After considering her defense, FMB terminated her contract on 24 October 2024. The company kept the Oficina Antifraude informed throughout, as the court noted.
The executive challenged the dismissal in court, arguing that it was retaliation for her whistleblower activities and should be declared null under Spain’s Law 2/2023. The law prohibits reprisals against whistleblowers, including dismissal, but allows disciplinary action if an employer shows that the grounds are unrelated to the protected disclosure and sufficiently serious. The court examined the timeline and evidence, noting that some changes affecting the subordinate occurred before the executive received protected status. The judge concluded that FMB had established a clear, independent basis for dismissal: ongoing workplace harassment that breached her contract, even if it did not amount to a criminal offense.
The court did not uphold all allegations against the executive. It dismissed claims of threats and some forms of intimidation, but found the basic pattern serious enough to justify termination: the subordinate’s duties were reduced, his work was excessively monitored, and he received inappropriate assignments. The court also clarified that the closure of related criminal proceedings did not prevent labor sanctions, because the standards for contractual breach differ from those for criminal liability. That distinction was basic to upholding the dismissal.
Although the executive lost her job, the court ordered FMB to pay her €10,000 plus interest for unpaid variable compensation in 2024, citing the company’s failure to properly communicate the performance targets for the bonus.
The ruling does not give employers free rein to dismiss whistleblowers. Companies must document and justify disciplinary action based on facts unrelated to protected disclosures. The court found that FMB met that standard and that the executive’s protected status did not override the proven misconduct. The case sets a precedent for how Spanish courts may interpret the limits of whistleblower immunity under Ley 2/2023.
For Spanish companies, the outcome is a reminder that whistleblower laws require strong safeguards against retaliation while leaving room for legitimate disciplinary measures. Courts will examine the real reasons for dismissal, and employers must show a clear separation between protected activity and disciplinary grounds.
