February 3, 2025
Equal Opportunities – Discrimination
Indirect Discrimination: Company Statements Penalizing Women and Young Workers
Busto Arsizio Court

The Busto Arsizio Court has recognized as indirect discrimination the statements made by the administrator of a fashion company, who, at a public event, stated a preference for men or women over the age of 40 for top management roles, considering them more stable from a family standpoint.

The claimant association argued that such statements, due to their content and widespread dissemination, could discourage younger female employees from applying for leadership positions. The Court upheld the claim, ordering the company to compensate for damages and adopt corrective measures, including publishing the ruling in a national newspaper and implementing a training plan to counter gender- and age-based discrimination.

This decision confirms that public statements can also constitute discrimination when they reinforce biases that limit job access on a non-meritocratic basis.

December 5, 2024
Working Hours, Leave, and Breaks
Weekly Rest and On-Call Duty: The Right to Compensation Is Non-Waivable
Milan Court

The Milan Court has confirmed that workers required to be on active on-call duty during their weekly rest days are entitled to compensatory rest, even if the work performed is less than half of their regular working hours.

Several employees of a railway company had complained about not receiving compensatory rest for days when they were on call and were effectively required to work. The company only provided financial compensation, refusing to grant rest time. The Court ruled in favor of the workers, reaffirming that the right to weekly rest is inalienable and protected by both the Constitution and European Union law.

This ruling aligns with established case law, emphasizing that weekly rest must be ensured through actual compensatory time off and cannot be replaced solely by financial compensation.

March 5, 2025
Social Security and Contributions
Pensions 2025: Extensions and Updates on Early Retirement, APE Sociale, and Women’s Option
INPS

The latest INPS circular introduces key pension-related changes for 2025. Among the main updates are the extension of the APE Sociale scheme, the expansion of flexible early retirement, and broader eligibility for the “Women’s Option.”

The APE Sociale scheme will remain available to workers in difficult conditions who meet the requirements by 2025. The income cap for occasional self-employment remains at €5,000 per year.

Regarding flexible early retirement, individuals turning at least 62 and having accrued 41 years of contributions in 2025 will be eligible for retirement, with different start dates depending on their industry.

Finally, the “Women’s Option” has been extended to female workers who meet the requirements by December 31, 2024. Age reductions for mothers remain in place, allowing for a reduction of up to two years in retirement age.

These measures reflect a gradual approach to pension system reform, aiming to provide greater flexibility for workforce exit.

February 28, 2025
Incentives
Impatriate Regime: Tax Relief Confirmed for Non-University Professional Qualifications
Italian Revenue Agency

A maritime sector worker holding a Master’s license for ships over 3,000 GT inquired whether he could benefit from the tax relief available to returning expatriate workers, despite his qualification not being equivalent to a university degree.

The Italian Revenue Agency clarified that the requirement for “high-level qualification or specialization” can be met not only through a university degree but also through advanced professional qualifications recognized under current regulations, such as the Consolidated Immigration Act or Legislative Decree No. 206 of November 9, 2007.

Therefore, to qualify for the tax relief, the worker must demonstrate possession of one of the alternative requirements set by law, without needing equivalence to a university degree. This interpretation broadens access to the tax benefit, facilitating the return of highly skilled professionals to Italy, even if they hold professional certifications instead of academic degrees.

February 10, 2025
Industrial Relations
Proximity Agreements: Their Validity Does Not Depend on Explicit Legal Reference
Cass., Labor Section

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a proximity agreement remains valid even if it does not explicitly reference Article 8 of Decree Law No. 138/2011, as long as the text demonstrates the parties’ intent to deviate from national labor laws and collective agreements.

The case concerned a worker contesting the legitimacy of two fixed-term intermittent contracts signed under a company-level agreement. The claimant argued that the agreement could not be classified as a “proximity agreement” because it did not explicitly mention the legal provisions allowing deviations from national collective agreements.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument, confirming that the company agreement fully complied with the proximity agreement regulations and that the contained deviations were lawful. The Court emphasized that the key criterion for validity is that the agreement serves collective interests, such as increasing employment or business competitiveness, and is signed by representative trade unions.

This ruling strengthens the role of company-level agreements as a tool for flexibility in labor relations.

February 12, 2025
Dismissal for Just Cause
The Right to Criticism Protects Against Dismissal but Only Within Legal Limits
Cass., Labor Section

A doctor sent an email to his supervisor accusing him of harassment and copied all colleagues. As a result, the doctor was dismissed and subsequently challenged the decision in court.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the doctor, clarifying that the right to criticism does not justify gratuitous insults but must be exercised within the bounds of correctness and factual accuracy. The Court stressed that legitimate criticism must adhere to standard diligence in language and form, avoiding unnecessary harm to another’s reputation. In this case, the criticism, although sharp, remained within acceptable limits, rendering the dismissal unjustified.

February 6, 2025
Employee Monitoring
Video Surveillance in Outdoor Workspaces
Cass., Labor Section

A warehouse worker was dismissed for just cause after repeated thefts of company goods were discovered through surveillance camera footage recorded in the company’s outdoor loading area. The dismissal was upheld by the lower courts, which found it proportionate to the worker’s misconduct, as proven during the trial by the employer.

The Supreme Court confirmed the ruling, emphasizing that the surveillance system, being installed outside company premises, was solely intended for asset protection. The worker’s job performance was not subject to monitoring through this system; he was merely captured within the camera’s range while performing loading operations outdoors.