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 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 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, was based on a documented disciplinary cause, not her whistleblowing activities.
The executive, who led FMB’s Bon Govern division since 2006 and oversaw compliance, transparency, and data protection, was recognized as a protected informant by the Oficina Antifraude de Cataluña in May 2024. This status was linked to a separate internal investigation she had managed involving allegations against other company officials. Under Spain’s Ley 2/2023, whistleblowers are protected from reprisals, but employers can take disciplinary action if they prove the grounds are independent and substantiated.
The executive was officially recognized as a protected whistleblower by the Oficina Antifraude de Cataluña on 10 May 2024, prior to the events leading to her dismissal.
Her dismissal was triggered by a formal complaint from a subordinate in September 2024. The employee reported being stripped of responsibilities, reassigned to work under lower-ranked colleagues, and given tasks below his professional level. He also described receiving contradictory instructions and being closely monitored, with other managers copied on critical emails. The court confirmed these details after reviewing the internal investigation and timeline.
FMB responded by temporarily removing the executive from her role, keeping her salary during the investigation. An internal report found credible evidence of psychological harassment, leading to disciplinary proceedings. After considering her defense, FMB terminated her contract on 24 October 2024. The company kept the Oficina Antifraude informed throughout, as noted in the court's findings.
The executive challenged the dismissal in court, arguing it was retaliation for her whistleblower activities and should be declared null under Spain’s Law 2/2023. This law prohibits reprisals against whistleblowers, including dismissal, but allows disciplinary action if the employer can show the grounds are unrelated to the protected disclosure and are serious enough. The court examined the timeline and evidence, noting that some of the changes affecting the subordinate happened 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.
Spain's Ley 2/2023, which came into force in 2023, explicitly forbids retaliation against whistleblowers but permits disciplinary action if the employer can demonstrate that the grounds are independent and properly documented. The Barcelona case illustrates that protected status does not grant absolute immunity from dismissal, provided the employer meets the legal burden of proof.
Not all allegations against the executive were upheld. The court dismissed claims of threats and some forms of intimidation, but found the main pattern—demotion of duties, excessive oversight, and inappropriate assignments—serious enough to justify termination. The court also clarified that the closure of related criminal proceedings did not prevent labor sanctions, since the standards for contractual breach differ from those for criminal liability. This distinction was key in 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 performance targets for the bonus.
The ruling does not give employers free rein to dismiss whistleblowers. Instead, it shows that whistleblower protection is not absolute: companies must document and justify any disciplinary action, and it must be based on facts unrelated to protected disclosures. In this case, the court found FMB met that standard, and 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, but do not grant immunity from legitimate disciplinary measures. Courts will examine the real reasons for dismissal, and only those able to show a clear separation between protected activity and disciplinary grounds will succeed.
