The Danish Disputes Board Dismisses Sexual Harassment Claim Against Employer

The Danish Disputes Board (Tvistighedsnævnet) issued a decision on 16 June 2026 regarding whether an apprentice chef was entitled to compensation under the Danish Equal Treatment Act after allegedly being sexually harassed by the company's Assistant Head Chef. The apprentice also claimed compensation for loss of training benefits.

A majority of the Board found that the apprentice had failed to establish facts giving rise to a presumption that she had been subject to sexual harassment. Consequently, the shared burden of proof under section 16a of the Danish Equal Treatment Act did not apply.

Dispute Concerning Sexual Harassment and Termination of Apprenticeship Agreement 

The case concerned an apprentice chef who alleged that she had been subject to sexual harassment by the company's Assistant Head Chef during her employment. She claimed compensation under the Danish Equal Treatment Act for sexual harassment and victimization, as well as compensation for loss of training benefits under the Danish Vocational Education and Training Act.

After the company became aware of the apprentice's allegations, both the apprentice and the Assistant Head Chef were invited to meetings. The company also implemented measures to minimize contact between them, including revising work schedules so that they worked together only to a limited extent.

The apprentice subsequently terminated her apprenticeship agreement because the company had materially breached its obligations. In this connection, she argued that the company had failed to deal adequately with the alleged sexual harassment.

The Board Ruled in Favour of the Employer 

A majority of the Danish Disputes Board found that the apprentice had failed to establish facts giving rise to a presumption that she had been subject to sexual harassment. Among other things, the majority emphasized that none of the other witnesses had personally observed the alleged incidents and that a written statement from a former employee could not be attributed to independent evidential weight.

The majority further noted that the company had acted immediately upon management's becoming aware of the apprentice's allegations. The company interviewed the individuals involved, limited contact between the apprentice and the Assistant Head Chef and reminded employees that sexual harassment would not be tolerated in the workplace. On that basis, the majority concluded that the employer had fulfilled its duty to ensure a workplace free from harassment.

As the apprentice had no facts giving rise to a presumption that sexual harassment had occurred, the majority held that the shared burden of proof under section 16a of the Danish Equal Treatment Act did not apply. Accordingly, the burden of proof did not shift to the employer.

The majority also found no basis for concluding that the apprentice had been subjected to victimization in breach of the Danish Equal Treatment Act. The employer was therefore also acquitted of the claim for compensation for loss of training benefits.

Littler's Comments 

The decision illustrates the importance of employers responding promptly and systematically when they become aware of allegations of sexual harassment. A swift response, dialogue with the parties involved, and the implementation of appropriate measures may be of significant importance when assessing whether an employer has fulfilled its obligation under section 4(2) of the Danish Equal Treatment Act to prevent and address sexual harassment and to ensure a workplace free from harassment.

The decision also demonstrates that the burden of proof in section 16a of the Danish Equal Treatment Act apply only where the complainant has facts giving rise to a presumption that sexual harassment has occurred. Where this threshold is not met, the burden of proof remains with the complainant.

Would you like to read more employment law updates from us? Click here. 

Disclaimer: The above information is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute, and cannot replace, legal advice. 

Reference: 

• Decision No. 42.2025: https://pro.karnovgroup.dk/b/documents/7001030802