January 10, 2025
Agile Work – “Smart Working”
Smart working for disabled workers: The Supreme Court expands obligations for companies
Cass., Labor Section

In a recent ruling, the Court of Cassation established that an employer must allow a disabled worker to perform their job remotely as a form of “reasonable accommodation,” even in the absence of an individual agreement, provided that the financial burden is not disproportionate.

The case involved an employee with severe visual impairments who requested remote work due to difficulties accessing the workplace. Despite the company’s exclusion of the employee’s role from smart working policies, the Court determined that denying the request constituted prohibited discrimination under Article 3, paragraph 3-bis, of Legislative Decree 216/2003.

The ruling emphasizes that the principle of equal treatment requires employers to adopt reasonable solutions to remove barriers that limit disabled employees’ participation in the workplace. Since the company had already used smart working during the pandemic, the Court deemed it a feasible and non-onerous option.

This decision sets a significant precedent, reinforcing the right of disabled workers to perform their jobs under fair conditions. It imposes an obligation on employers to identify work arrangements compatible with both the specific needs of disabled employees and the company’s operational capacity.

January 9, 2025
Disability
The dismissal of a disabled worker can still be discriminatory even if based on legitimate economic reasons
Cass., Labor Section

A disabled manager was dismissed following a corporate reorganization, which resulted in the elimination of her position. The employee challenged the dismissal, but both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeal upheld its legitimacy, citing genuine economic and organizational reasons that ruled out discrimination.

However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, siding with the employee. The judges emphasized that a dismissal cannot be automatically excluded from being discriminatory just because it is justified by economic reasons. The Court concluded that the employee had provided sufficient indirect evidence that her dismissal was due to her newly acquired disability. Among all managers affected by the reorganization, she was the only one with a disability and the only one dismissed. The Court reiterated that once circumstances suggesting discrimination are established, the employer bears the burden of proving the absence of discriminatory intent.

January 7, 2025
Disability
Dismissing a disabled worker for exceeding the ordinary sick leave period is discriminatory
Cass., Labor Section

An employee was dismissed for exceeding the standard sick leave period established by the national collective labor agreement (CCNL).

The Supreme Court, confirming its recent stance on the issue, ruled that the dismissal was unlawful. First, it found that applying the same sick leave period to both disabled and non-disabled workers constitutes indirect discrimination. This is because disabled employees are more likely to experience health issues due to their condition. Thus, imposing the same sick leave limit as non-disabled workers discriminates against this protected and disadvantaged social group.

Second, the Court stated that if an employer is aware of an employee’s disability or could reasonably determine it, they must first assess whether the employee’s absences are linked to their disability before proceeding with dismissal.

December 10, 2024
Contracting
“Non-acceptance” clauses in service contracts are unlawful
Catanzaro Trial Court

A group of workers filed a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of a service contract under which they were employed. They sought recognition of a direct employment relationship with the contracting company, arguing that the contract contained a clause allowing the client to require the contractor to replace any employees deemed “unsuitable” for the job.

The workers contended that such a clause unlawfully interfered with the contractor’s personnel management, violating the legal framework governing service contracts.

The court ruled in favor of the workers, declaring the clause invalid. The judge found that the obligation to replace employees deemed unsuitable by the client was unlawful, as it effectively gave the client direct control over the contractor’s workforce. This interference rendered the entire contract null, thereby granting the workers the right to a direct employment relationship with the client company.

January 10, 2025
Fixed-term employment
The nullity of a fixed-term contract obligates the employer to pay social security contributions for the period of non-employment
Cass., Labor Section

A worker successfully challenged the validity of a fixed-term contract, which was subsequently converted into an open-ended employment contract. The employee then demanded that the employer pay social security contributions for the period between the contract’s expiration and the court ruling that declared it void.

The Supreme Court clarified that when a fixed-term contract is declared null, the employment relationship is considered never to have been terminated. As a result, the employer is obligated to pay social security contributions for the entire period, even if the employee did not perform any work during that time.

The judges further specified that the statute of limitations for recovering social security contributions starts from the expiration date of the voided contract, not from the court ruling.

December 6, 2024
Dismissal for just cause
A bank employee can be dismissed for disloyal behavior, even if not explicitly listed in the disciplinary code
Cass., Labor Section

A bank employee was dismissed for conducting 388 personal trading operations during working hours and for concealing €1,580. The employee challenged the dismissal, arguing it should be annulled. However, both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeal sided with the bank and upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court confirmed these rulings.

The judges reiterated that, even if the misconduct was not explicitly classified as just cause for dismissal in the collective labor agreement, it constituted a serious violation of the duty of good faith and diligence required of every employee. Specifically, concealing money, particularly for a bank employee, was deemed a serious breach of trust, justifying the dismissal.

The Court reaffirmed that judges can assess the severity of an employee’s misconduct based on the specific circumstances of the case, without requiring a precise classification in collective agreements—especially when the misconduct violates principles of integrity and transparency.

October 24, 2024
Illness and injury
Exposure to asbestos: Smoking reduces compensation for occupational disease
Cass., Labor Section

A worker who had been employed for 25 years in a steel plant and exposed to hazardous substances died from asbestos-related cancer.

The Court of Appeal, ruling in favor of the deceased worker’s heirs, ordered the company to pay substantial damages for the occupational disease.

However, the Supreme Court partially overturned this decision regarding the compensation amount. The Court ruled that since the worker was a habitual smoker, their voluntary tobacco use contributed to the development of the disease. Consequently, the compensation should be proportionally reduced based on the degree to which the worker’s smoking contributed to the illness.

The Court stated that when a victim’s conduct plays a causal role in the damage suffered, smoking must be considered a voluntary and independent choice made by a legally competent individual. As a result, the final compensation amount must reflect the extent of the victim’s contributory negligence.