March 4, 2025
Individual dismissal
Dismissal for incapacity is unlawful if the prognosis is subject to revision
Court of Rome
An employee was declared totally unfit for work by a medical review board after a serious non-work-related accident and was subsequently dismissed. However, the incapacity was subject to reassessment within three years. During this time, the employee began physical recovery and was able to walk independently again in a short period.
The court ruled the dismissal unlawful, noting that the medical assessment could not be deemed final without a declaration of irreversibility. This was supported by a court-appointed medical expert, who confirmed partial recovery of work capacity before the end of the protected absence period (which the employer had not even cited as the reason for dismissal).
The judge stated that in such cases, the employer cannot proceed with dismissal unless the prognosis is irrevocable and definitive; they must either wait for the protected period to end or consider reassignment options after an assessment by the company doctor.
The company was ordered to reinstate the employee and compensate for the damages.
April 23, 2025
Mobbing
The employer must prevent stress from work overload
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee filed a lawsuit claiming a worsening of his physical and mental health due to excessive workload imposed by the company, resulting in severe personal and professional distress. Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged the workload, it rejected the claim, stating there was no evidence of specific harassing conduct that would constitute mobbing.
The Supreme Court overturned this ruling, emphasizing that the employer is required to take all necessary measures to safeguard the employee’s mental and physical well-being. Systematic persecution is not required: even a severe work overload, if not properly managed, can breach safety obligations.
Failing to organize work in a way that prevents stressful conditions can lead to employer liability and entitle the employee to compensation.
April 3, 2025
Equal opportunities – Discrimination
Discriminatory conduct: employer must pay allowance even during protected absences
Court of Milan
A trade union sued a private security company for failing to pay presence bonuses during periods of absence due to Law 104/1992 leave, parental leave, or when employees were newly hired at level 6I. The company followed the UGL-AISS collective agreement, which only granted the allowance for hours actually worked.
The court found this practice discriminatory, as it penalized protected conditions under anti-discrimination law and created unequal treatment based on disability, gender, and age.
The clause limiting the bonus was declared null and void. The court ordered the company to pay the allowance during the protected absences and adopt a plan to eliminate the discriminatory effects.
According to the judge, while the allowance aims to incentivize attendance, it cannot result in unfavorable economic treatment of individuals in protected situations. Justified absences for caregiving or disability must be treated the same as actual work hours when determining additional compensation.
