A worker from the Kharkiv Transport Plant has obtained compensation for moral damage from two of his colleagues – a grinder and a storekeeper – due to systematic insults at the workplace. The incident ended with a lawsuit that was upheld in the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Poltava.
This is reported by Finway
Circumstances of the Workplace Conflict
According to the materials of case No. 645/5568/21, published on August 20, 2025, both women insulted the plaintiff, using inappropriate expressions towards him. In particular, they called him “a woman, not a man” and claimed that he “smelled.” In addition to verbal insults, the women also prevented their colleague from approaching the machine, which hindered the performance of his professional duties. The man demanded to be addressed politely – “using ‘you’ and by his first and patronymic name.”
“The plaintiff was plagued by feelings of shame. By the end of the shift, his hands trembled from anxiety. He barely managed to work until the end of the shift. Upon returning home, he was forced to take 3 tablets of the calming medication ‘Valerian Extract'” – the case materials state.
Court Case and Decision
Despite a complaint to the plant management, no actions were taken to resolve the conflict, so the man turned to the court. Although the lawsuit was filed before the start of the full-scale war, the decision was made on August 20, 2025. Due to the state of martial law, the hearing took place in Poltava, even though the events themselves occurred in Kharkiv.
The plaintiff sought 80,000 hryvnias in compensation for moral damage, but the court deemed this amount excessive. Following the review, each of the defendants was ordered to pay 400 hryvnias to the victim, as well as cover additional expenses: court fees (4.54 UAH), expert costs (48.82 UAH), and compensation for disruption of usual activities (9.99 UAH). Thus, the total amount for each woman amounted to 463.35 hryvnias.
The court noted that the amount of the award corresponds to the principles of fairness, good faith, and reasonableness. The judicial consideration of this case has become an example of protecting the personal dignity of employees in enterprises.