A specific sexual harassment framework

Law 2365 addresses sexual harassment in the work context and educational institutions within its scope. Its definition covers vertical and horizontal power relationships and conduct occurring once or repeatedly. Repetition should not be demanded as a universal condition before a complaint is addressed.

Although connected with sexual and sex-based harassment, Colombian definitions and procedures need to be used. Protection is not restricted to people with employment contracts: the law includes other relationships arising within the work context.

Duties and response routes

Employers need communicated policies, protocols and response routes, handling complaints and taking measures within their powers. Entities engaging individual service providers also have responsibilities under the law; those measures do not themselves create a presumption of employment status.

Affected people should understand their options and access to competent authorities. An internal complaint is not a prerequisite for a criminal report. Where the alleged perpetrator is the organisation’s highest hierarchical superior, the law provides for involvement of the Labour Inspectorate.

Protection without revictimisation

Responses must preserve privacy, dignity and protection against retaliation. Victims should not face compulsory confrontation, nor should the situation automatically be treated as an ordinary dispute suitable for conciliation between colleagues.

Decree 1040 of 2026 develops provisions on harassment, violence and discrimination at work and reinforces policies, protocols and response routes. It needs to be read alongside the law: an older policy should be reviewed against the applicable framework rather than assumed sufficient because it was previously approved.

Check whether the route works

A practical review might examine how a contractor would report conduct occurring through work-related messages, who would receive the information and which measures could protect the person. Actual accessibility matters as much as publishing the protocol.

Records should restrict access and distinguish allegations, actions and conclusions. Investigation requires safeguards for those involved and does not replace judicial or disciplinary powers. Preventive follow-up should also review conditions that enabled the conduct and whether the measures taken are effective in the real working environment.