The cost of honesty for a Local Police non-commissioned officer who endured 10 years of abuse
Abstract: After uncovering irregularities in the use of school services by the child of a senior official, Loredana Camaioni faced a series of criminal and disciplinary proceedings that proved to be unfounded, as well as pressure to take on the duties of commander without formal appointment and an unjustified suspension. The Labour Court of Teramo found the Municipality liable for breach of its duty of protection under Article 2087 of the Civil Code, recognizing a chronic anxiety-depressive disorder (biological damage of 14%) and ordering the municipality to pay €44,729 in damages. Interpreted in light of case law on mobbing and straining in the public administration, the judgment stands as an exemplary precedent for local police forces and, more broadly, for all public employees who suffer retaliation for fulfilling their duty to uphold legality.
Keywords: #LocalPolice #Mobbing #Straining #WorkplaceHarassment #WorkerProtection#PublicAdministration #CourtRuling #BiologicalDamage #WorkRelatedStress #HostileWorkEnvironment #Art2087cc #LaborJustice #Retaliation #Legality #Whistleblowing #LocalPoliceForces #SantEgidioAllaVibrata #TeramoCourt #WorkersRights #ToxicWorkplace #Compensation #InstitutionalViolence #AbuseOfPower #PublicEthics #GenderDiscrimination #MassimilianoMancini #ethicasocietas #ethicasocietasrivista #rivistascientifica #diritto #ethicasocietasupli
The Labor Court of Teramo has ordered the Municipality of Sant’Egidio alla Vibrata (TE) to compensate Local Police officer Loredana Camaioni with €44,729, recognizing that she was subjected for over ten years to a hostile and harassing work environment, marked by unfounded disciplinary and criminal proceedings, undue pressure, and professional isolation.
This is not just a personal victory—it is a ruling that sets an important precedent for the entire public sector, especially against the delusions of omnipotence of managers and administrators of local authorities who, acting like feudal lords of their territories, treat workers as their servants and the local police as their own political militia.
Now, the Court of Auditors must intervene to ensure that those responsible for these abuses personally bear the financial consequences, rather than the taxpayers.
It All Began with an “Inconvenient” Inspection
For years, Loredana worked as a municipal police officer without any particular issues. The break came in 2010, when, during routine checks on school transport and meal services, she discovered that the son of a municipal manager was using the school bus free of charge and receiving school meals on more days than had actually been paid for.
That inspection led to a criminal investigation, which was later dismissed, but confirmed violations of municipal regulations and ordered the reimbursement of funds. From that point on, according to the Court, the atmosphere around Loredana changed completely.
The Municipality’s Reaction: Complaints, Proceedings, and Isolation
Soon after the incident, the municipal manager who had been the subject of the inspection filed a series of complaints against her—for insult, defamation, abuse of office, and alleged disrespectful behavior—all of which were dismissed.
Several disciplinary proceedings were also initiated, all of which led to nothing—except for one concerning the alleged failure to issue administrative injunctions, later annulled by the Labor Court.
Nevertheless, the employee was forced for years to defend herself in numerous legal proceedings. The judge established that Loredana had to face:
-
9 disciplinary proceedings;
-
9 criminal proceedings;
-
2 cases before the Court of Auditors;
-
2 lawsuits before the Labor Court — one concerning her de facto assignment as Commander, the other to annul a disciplinary sanction.
The Unlawful Order to Act as “Commander” Without Appointment
At the heart of the matter lies the Municipality’s demand that she perform the duties of Police Commander without any formal appointment, despite lacking the necessary qualification—she was a vigilance inspector, not a senior executive—and without any economic recognition for the higher responsibilities involved. This constituted a clear violation of civil service regulations.
She was also repeatedly instructed to issue administrative injunctions under Law 689/1981, a power reserved to senior officials that entails financial and administrative liability.
When she refused, providing proper legal justification, the Municipality imposed a two-month suspension without pay.
The Labor Court of Teramo declared the disciplinary sanction unlawful, a ruling confirmed by the Court of Appeal of L’Aquila, which reiterated that the order given by the Municipality was itself illegitimate.
The Health Consequences
The consequences on her health were serious: insomnia, early awakening, fatigue, and even major depressive episodes, cardiac and psychosomatic symptoms—a classic picture of a person subjected for years to organizational stress, exacerbated conflict, and disciplinary and legal threats, in a context that should instead uphold legality and fairness.
The judgment devoted significant space to the worker’s health condition.
The court-appointed medical expert (CTU) ruled out any prior psychological disorders and linked her condition directly to the workplace events and prolonged hostile environment, diagnosing an “adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood – complicated”, with a permanent biological damage of 14%.
According to Supreme Court (Cassation) case law, mobbing is not merely a collection of unlawful acts, but a systematic, targeted, and prolonged campaign of persecution. Even in the absence of “full mobbing,” an employer violates Article 2087 of the Civil Code if it tolerates or creates a stressful environment that harms the worker’s health.
The Ruling
The Court found the material existence of mobbing conduct, consisting of unfounded complaints, illegitimate orders, unjustified disciplinary sanctions, referrals to the Court of Auditors, and the employer’s failure to protect the employee.
It held that the public administration had breached its duty of care toward the employee, emphasizing that a public body cannot hide behind a “different legal interpretation” when its management is aggressive and punitive.
Accordingly, the Municipality of Sant’Egidio alla Vibrata was ordered to pay the officer €44,729 for non-pecuniary damages (biological and moral), plus legal interest, legal costs (€5,388 plus accessories), and expert witness fees.
The Court rejected the claim for loss of chance (failure to transfer to another public body through mobility), finding that the likelihood of success in that procedure was not sufficiently proven.
A Precedent for Public Workers
For many local police officers—and indeed for many public employees—this case represents an important precedent. It shows that, despite loneliness, resistance, and long delays, justice is possible. Reporting misconduct is not only an ethical duty, but also a right that the State must protect and guarantee.
la sentenza: Tribunale di Teramo RG 22-2022
LATEST 5 CONTRIBUTIONS
SUSPENDED GENERATIONS: JUVENILE CRIME, PERIPHERIES AND THE LIMITS OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
JUVENILE CRIME ON THE RISE IN SCOPE AND IMPACT
SILENCE IS NOT LOVE, IT IS A CHEMICAL PRISON, AND OUR SILENCE IS COMPLICITY
LANGUAGE AS A TOOL OF VIOLENCE AND REDEMPTION
THE OCCUPATIONAL PHYSICIAN: THE INVISIBLE ALLY WHO PROTECTS THOSE WHO BUILD THE WORLD
Ethica Societas is a free, non-profit review published by a social cooperative non.profit organization
Copyright Ethica Societas, Human&Social Science Review © 2025 by Ethica Societas UPLI onlus.
ISSN 2785-602X. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0