4 September 2025
Employee monitoring
Dismissal for false statements is legitimate if supported by defensive investigative checks
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
A worker employed as a meter reader was dismissed for just cause after the company, through checks supported by a private investigation agency, uncovered repeated misconduct. These included falsifying the start and end times of the workday, spending long periods idle in the company car, using the vehicle for personal purposes, and failing to wear company uniforms and equipment. The Court of Cassation confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal, deeming the appeal’s grounds inadmissible and unfounded. The Supreme Court reiterated that although generalized monitoring of job performance is not allowed, so-called “targeted defensive checks” are admissible when aimed at verifying unlawful or fraudulent conduct — even through private investigators. This applies in particular when the work is performed off-site, as in this case, and when the employer has well-founded suspicions of behaviour detrimental to company assets or reputation. The repeated nature of the misconduct made the dismissal proportionate.
11 September 2025
Disabled persons
Rights of family “caregiver” workers
Court of Justice of the European Union
The case concerned a female employee, mother of a child with a severe disability, who requested a fixed morning shift in order to assist her son with afternoon treatments. The company denied the request to stabilize her schedule, and Italian courts rejected her claim. The Court of Cassation, when called to review the case, suspended the proceedings and asked the EU Court of Justice whether Directive 2000/78/EC on equal treatment in employment applies to cases of “discrimination by association” — that is, when an employee suffers disadvantage because of a family member’s disability. The Court answered affirmatively: individuals who care for a disabled relative are also protected by the principle of non-discrimination. It recalled that the principle, enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and implemented through Directive 2000/78/EC, must be interpreted broadly. According to the judgment, this principle prohibits any form of direct or indirect discrimination based on disability, including against workers who, though not disabled themselves, suffer disadvantage due to providing essential care to a disabled child. The employer must adopt reasonable accommodations to enable the caregiver to work — such as schedule changes or suitable reassignments — provided these measures respect proportionality and do not impose an excessive burden on the organization.
11 September 2025
Dismissal for supervening unfitness
Reasonable accommodations: dismissal is lawful if the company has done everything possible
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
An employee working as a bar attendant in a hotel was absent for a long period following a serious accident. Upon returning to work in 2018, she was deemed fit for duty only with significant restrictions: no manual handling of loads, no prolonged standing, and a preference for seated work. A few days later, she was dismissed for supervening unfitness. The employee challenged the dismissal, claiming that the company had not sought any organizational solutions compatible with her medical limitations. However, the courts found that all available duties were incompatible with her condition and that the few alternative roles — such as cashier — would have required a disproportionate organizational restructuring. The Court of Cassation confirmed the dismissal’s legitimacy, reiterating that, in cases involving disability, the employer must concretely assess the feasibility of reasonable accommodations but is not obliged to overhaul its organizational structure. The burden of proof lies with the employer, but it is met if the employer demonstrates having made every reasonable effort to preserve the employment relationship.
2 September 2025
Working hours, holidays, and leave
Changing into and out of uniforms is paid only if recorded by time stamps
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
A nurse filed a lawsuit against the healthcare company he worked for, claiming he spent 15–20 minutes each day, before and after his shift, putting on and taking off his uniform without being paid for that time. The trial court partially upheld his claim, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The Court of Appeal denied the right to remuneration, holding that the time spent changing clothes must be recorded by time stamps, as provided by the collective bargaining agreement for the sector. The Court of Cassation confirmed this view, clarifying that time spent donning or doffing uniforms can be compensated only if it is proven that these activities occurred outside working hours and were performed as part of a company obligation. In this case, the employee failed to provide any allegations or evidence that the dressing and undressing took place before clocking in and after clocking out. Without such proof, no additional remuneration can be recognized. This clarification is particularly important for managing accessory work time, especially in the healthcare sector.
11 September 2025
Remuneration and benefits
Optional features paid by employees do not reduce the value of taxable fringe benefits
Italian Revenue Agency
A company asked the Italian Revenue Agency whether the amounts paid by employees for optional features on company cars used for both personal and business purposes could be excluded from the calculation of the taxable fringe benefit. Specifically, employees directly pay, via payroll deduction, for the cost of optional extras, while the base vehicle is provided free of charge. According to the company, the taxable value of the benefit — determined on a flat-rate basis according to ACI (Automobile Club Italia) tables — should be reduced by the sums withheld from the employee, even if related to optional extras. The Revenue Agency rejected this interpretation. Under Article 51(4)(a) of the Italian Income Tax Code (TUIR), only amounts paid by the employee for personal use of the vehicle may be deducted from the benefit’s value — not for optional goods or services. Payments made for optional features do not affect the per-kilometer value calculated based on ACI tables, which do not consider these costs. Therefore, even if borne by the employee, such payments do not reduce the taxable value of the fringe benefit.
29 August 2025
Job duties and demotion
Loss of night-shift pay is compensable in cases of unlawful demotion
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
The case concerned a worker who had long been assigned to night shifts and regularly received the corresponding pay supplement. The company later reassigned him to a daytime shift, resulting in the loss of this allowance. The trial court recognized damages for demotion, including financial loss due to the loss of night-shift premiums. The Court of Appeal confirmed the demotion but denied economic damages, considering the night-shift allowance an accessory, non-structural element that the employer could lawfully remove by changing the schedule. The Court of Cassation held otherwise, reaffirming that financial damage is compensable if it represents a direct and immediate consequence of unlawful conduct. In this case, the worker proved that he had been assigned to night shifts for years, regularly receiving related pay supplements, and was unilaterally reassigned to a different shift, losing a long-standing component of his remuneration. The Supreme Court ruled that the financial loss was a direct result of the unlawful change in duties and therefore awarded compensation to the worker.
20 September 2025
Dismissal for economic reasons
Dismissal due to reorganization is lawful if the employer justifies the impossibility of reassignment
Court of Cassation
An employee challenged her dismissal for objective justified reason, which was communicated following a company reorganization, arguing that her position had not been effectively eliminated and that the employer failed to prove the impossibility of internal reassignment. After conflicting lower court decisions, the Court of Cassation confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal, finding that the company reorganization represented a managerial decision that cannot be reviewed on its merits by the court. The Court emphasized that the employer must prove the impossibility of assigning the employee to other equivalent duties, but this requirement is satisfied when the justification is adequately reasoned and consistent with the company’s organizational chart. In this case, the company’s statement that there were no compatible positions for possible reassignment, supported by documentation, was deemed sufficient.
