What the court decided
A 31-year-old assistant inspector who ran a police box in Shimoda took his own life in March 2012. In his last month he had taken on trainee supervision on top of his post, kept patrolling over a run of burglaries, and was preparing for an overseas training trip. His overtime rose from about 43 hours to over 112. He worked two 14-day stretches separated by a single day off, each including five 24-hour shifts. Three months earlier a stress check had given him the lowest rating, and he had told his section chief. Nothing was done.
The High Court rejected his parents' damages claim because his work did not meet the "qualitatively excessive" test in the public-sector compensation guidelines. The Supreme Court, Second Petty Bench, unanimously reversed. An employer must manage work so that fatigue and stress do not build up to the point of harming employees' health, and managers who direct work must exercise their authority in line with that duty. The guidelines can inform the decision but do not limit it. Here the superiors could see the workload from duty logs and overtime reports, knew the stress check result, and took no step to reduce the load. The case was returned to fix damages.
Why it matters
The ruling applies the reasoning of the 2000 Dentsu case and extends it to public servants. Liability turns on what managers could see, not on whether a compensation threshold was crossed.
Action for employers
- Act on overtime reports. A sudden jump in hours, or long runs without a day off, should trigger a workload review by the line manager.
- Do not let stress check results sit. Where an employee shares a poor result, offer a doctor's interview and adjust work.
- Train managers on their personal role. The duty is exercised through them; logging hours is not enough.
- Watch extra assignments. Stacking projects on a strong performer is the classic pattern.
Sources
- Supreme Court, Second Petty Bench, judgment of 7 March 2025, Case No. 2023 (Ju) 927.
- Labour Contract Act, Article 5; Supreme Court, Dentsu case, 24 March 2000.