Virginia's smile is as bright as the sun that is beaming down Lake Geneva and her embrace is just as warm.

When I* first met Virginia two years ago, she was at the center of litigation proceedings that she had only previously seen on television. In court, she challenged not only her former employer, but his power. Her courage was put to the test. "They are diplomats. They have immunity. They [are] like God; they are so powerful. But I have God and the truth on my side," she told me back then.

In 2021, Virginia and three other migrant domestic workers sued their employers at the Pakistani Mission in Geneva alleging conditions of forced labor that included unpaid wages, exploitation, and trafficking.

Their employers were diplomats protected by diplomatic immunity. They did not think they stood a chance.  

In September 2025, nearly five years after they filed their case, the Swiss courts ruled that immunity cannot be used to shield diplomats from labor-related lawsuits. Domestic workers can bring a claim against their employer, regardless of their diplomatic status.

Virginia first learned of the court ruling through a newspaper article shared on a Facebook page for Filipinos in Geneva. "No immunity for exploitative diplomats", read the headline.

"I couldn’t believe it," Virginia said. She asked a relative to buy a copy of the newspaper and scoured the internet looking for reports in other publications. The email from her lawyer confirmed it.

"How did that moment feel for you?" I ask.

She hesitates before slowly saying, "Happy." Like it is a word she is getting used to saying in relation to herself.

After a pause, she says with more certainty, "I'm happy. Really happy. I hope things will get better not just for us, but for others like us."

The court decision has been heralded as a landmark ruling that indicates a legal shift in putting limits on diplomatic immunity, paving the way for improving work place protections for domestic workers.

"Everything we went through—it wasn’t for nothing," Virginia told InfoMigrants, her voice breaks with emotion but she maintains her smile. "We fought for our rights. Now everyone will know we were telling the truth."

Read AlsoDiplomats and abuse — chipping at the shield of immunity

Challenging diplomatic immunity

The Swiss ruling together with other court rulings in the UK indicate that courts are narrowing the scope of diplomatic immunity. In 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that diplomatic immunity does not apply in cases that constitute modern day slavery and trafficking. Earlier this year, the UK court ordered the government of the United Arab Emirates to pay 260,000 British Pounds (303,868 euros) to a Filipino domestic worker exploited by one of its foreign envoys.

The Geneva-based trade union SIT syndicat, which advised the Filipino employees, lauded the Swiss ruling, calling it a historic turning point that now allows workers employed by abusive diplomats to sue directly in Swiss civil courts without having to rely on an uncertain diplomatic process.

"It is a clear hope for justice for all these vulnerable employees without whom diplomats relieved of the tasks of daily life would not be able to accomplish their missions," Mirella Falco, SIT Trade Union Secretary told InfoMigrants.

Raphaël Jakob, Virginia’s lawyer, called the UK 2022 ruling "an important step forward" but it made the waiving of immunity contingent upon the case reaching a threshold of modern slavery."

"The Swiss decision is more all-encompassing and broader in scope. Immunity never applies to this kind of case in civil court, regardless of the gravity of the violation of the working conditions," Jakob told InfoMigrants.

"To my knowledge, it's a first (ruling) by a Supreme Court. Switzerland--Geneva in particular -- is a major diplomatic hub. The precedent here has more practical weight than that of another country," he added.

Paola Ceresetti, Counsellor at the Swiss Mission, which oversees issuing visa permits to domestic workers in diplomatic households and monitors compliance with employee contracts, confirmed to InfoMigrants, that the Pakistani Mission's privilege of hiring domestic staff from overseas has been permanently revoked.

Additionally, Ceresetti said the Private Household Employees Ordinance, which sets working conditions of domestic staff employed by diplomatic missions and international organizations, is currently being adapted to reflect the Federal Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Pakistani Mission in Geneva and their legal counsel did not reply to numerous emails requesting a comment.

Under the Vienna Convention, diplomatic immunity afforded to state envoys and employees of international organizations protects them from criminal or civil suits. While intended to safeguard diplomats' ability to freely perform their duties, the misuse of diplomatic immunity can lead to the exploitation of domestic staff whose work and residence permits are tied to the employing foreign envoy.

A global database compiled by Philippine news agency, Rappler, documented over 200 cases and complaints by domestic workers against 160 abusive diplomat employers from 1988 to 2021.

Filed cases were usually dismissed because of diplomatic immunity. Decisions that awarded compensation to the victim-survivor were usually not enforced because the diplomat had left the country or was transferred to another embassy.

Read AlsoExplainer: The EU's anti-trafficking directive

Promise of a better life

Virginia, was a 22-year-old mother of two in 1999, when a friend told her about the opening for domestic staff at the Pakistani Mission in Switzerland.

She knew little about Switzerland, but imagined that it was totally different from her tropical countryside home in the Philippines. She also knew that the monthly salary of 1,200 Swiss francs (1,268 euros) promised in her contract was more money than she could ever earn in the Philippines.

"In my head, I was already computing the exchange and thinking about what that money could do for my children," she said.

When she arrived in Geneva, Virginia was shocked to learn of the "conditions" attached to her employment. She was expected to work for the Pakistan Mission three times a week without a salary. It would be up to her to find other jobs to have enough money to live on.

"What was I supposed to do? I was already here. It was still an opportunity to work," she explained.

The price of Virginia’s work and residence permit was her silence.

For close to 20 years, Virginia worked at the Pakistani Mission, cleaning during the day and at times, working well into the night when there were parties and functions. "There would be times when I would go home late at night. It would be cold and dark, sometimes snowing. I was always so tired."

Virginia’s sister, Rosario, later joined her at the Pakistani Mission under the same working conditions. When Georgia fell ill, her doctor advised her to work less. Thinking of her family back home that depended on her, Georgia protested and described the demands of their job. This prompted the doctor to report suspected exploitation to the Swiss Mission which then opened an investigation.

Virginia alleges that they were then pressured to sign backdated pay slips to falsely show that their employers had met their contractual obligations.

"We refused. My sister said, 'Those are lies!', walked out and slammed the door," said Virginia, shaking her head at the memory.

Later, her employer terminated he r-- by sending her a message on WhatsApp.

"I worked for them for nearly 20 years. I’m 48 now. That’s nearly half my life. But just like that they dismissed me."

Cost of speaking out

After they filed a case, SIT held a press conference with the workers. News coverage spread all across Switzerland and abroad. Online, the backlash was fierce with insults and accusations that they were lying.

Andrea, whose name has been changed, another worker who brought the case alongside Virginia, showed InfoMigrants messages from their employers and their spouses. Numerous messages called them "just maids" whose work permits depended on them.

The ordeal, which dragged on for nearly five years, took a toll on Virginia. She lost weight and clumps of her hair. She would wake up in cold sweats in the middle of the night before a court hearing. In court, she would sometimes have difficulty breathing.

Studies show that among Filipino migrant workers across the UK and Hong Kong, the most vulnerable to psychological distress were those working in private households. Living with employers contributes to isolation and increases the risk for psychological and sexual abuse. It also facilitates the never-ending work hours linked to forced labor. It is also these conditions that hinder domestic workers from seeking help.

Read AlsoHopes and fears surround implementation of new EU migration pact

Fight for compensation

While the Swiss court decision presents a precedence for better legal safeguards for domestic workers, Virginia’s lawyer, Jakob, cautions that a final judgment is still needed before moving to actually enforcing the claims for unpaid wages.

Still, he remains optimistic.

"Swiss authorities, who have a major responsibility, have not lived up to it so far. [They] might be spurred on to take some more effective action now that they know that there is a judicial avenue that is open to the workers," he said.

Meanwhile, Virginia is cherishing a claim of victory that is all her own. While embroiled in the court battle, she texted her diplomat employer, "You are a diplomat. You are smart and well-educated but you are [a] bad person. Your mother would not be happy with you."

"I knew exactly what I wanted to say but I couldn’t find the words in English. I asked a friend to translate," she chuckled.

With her chin and head held high, Virginia added, "I had never spoken to him like that — ever. But I did it. I stood up for myself."

*We have adjusted InfoMigrants' usual editorial style to allow for first-person reporting, because the author of this article is herself Filipino and so is able to explain more clearly some of the terms of address and cultural nuances that might have gone unnoticed by another reporter.