March 24, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Personal use of company PC: no just cause for dismissal
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee was dismissed for using the company PC for personal purposes, although no damage was caused to company data. The company justified the sanction by arguing that such behavior was incompatible with the trust relationship between employer and employee. The Court of Appeal deemed the dismissal disproportionate, emphasizing that the violation had not compromised the company’s IT assets. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that the conduct could justify a sanction, upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, ruling that dismissal is legitimate only in cases of serious misconduct that irreparably undermines the trust between employer and employee. In the absence of concrete damage and given the limited seriousness of the offense, the dismissal was deemed disproportionate. The judges reiterated that the seriousness of the misconduct must be assessed concretely, taking into account the specific circumstances and the impact of the employee’s behavior.
March 6, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Offensive content in chat between colleagues: dismissal ruled illegitimate
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee was dismissed for just cause after recording and sending several voice messages in a WhatsApp chat with thirteen colleagues, containing offensive, derogatory, threatening, and racist remarks about his team leader.
The Supreme Court confirmed the illegitimacy of the dismissal already recognized by the Court of Appeal, ruling that the protection of the freedom and confidentiality of private correspondence and the right to privacy in the employment relationship prevents the mere content of private communications — sent via personal devices to specific individuals with the intent to remain confidential — from constituting just cause for dismissal, regardless of how the employer came to know of them.
March 9, 2025
Individual dismissal
Reinstatement even for economic dismissal if proof is lacking: the Supreme Court aligns with the Constitutional Court
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee working as hotel booking manager was dismissed for objective justified reasons, citing a generic “company reorganization.” The Court of Appeal, although finding the dismissal unlawful due to lack of evidence of actual organizational needs, granted only the indemnity provided by the Jobs Act.
The employee appealed to the Supreme Court, also claiming the dismissal was retaliatory. The Court rejected this argument, affirming that unjustified dismissal alone does not imply a retaliatory intent. However, it upheld the appeal regarding the sanction: based on Constitutional Court ruling no. 128/2024, the absence of objective grounds requires the employee’s reinstatement, even under the rules of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015.
The Supreme Court emphasized that when the reason for economic dismissal proves unfounded, the employer cannot merely pay an indemnity but must reinstate the worker. This marks a significant shift in protecting workers against unjustified economic dismissals, reinforcing the employer’s burden of proof.
March 16, 2025
Maternity and paternity
Unlawful dismissal of employee on paternity leave assisting ill mother
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee was dismissed because, during a parental leave to care for his child, he traveled abroad to assist his ill mother. The Court of Appeal found that the absence was justified by urgent family needs and duties of family solidarity, thus annulled the dismissal. According to the Court, the employee’s actions did not constitute abuse of parental leave, as he acted for exceptional and urgent reasons and the child was continuously cared for by the mother. The Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation, stating that abuse of leave does not exist when the employee acts to fulfill urgent family obligations, without intending to harm the company or abuse the legal right. The Court emphasized that not only the duration but also the context and motives behind the leave must be assessed. Abuse of rights requires willful and malicious conduct, which was not present in this case.
March 11, 2025
Illness and injury
Discriminatory insults based on sexual orientation: dismissal for just cause upheld
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee was dismissed for just cause after directing gravely offensive and dignity-damaging comments of a discriminatory nature regarding a colleague’s sexual orientation during a dispute.
The Court of Appeal had considered the dismissal disproportionate, classifying the conduct as mere verbal insubordination and noting the absence of disciplinary history. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the employer’s appeal, affirming the legitimacy of the dismissal.
According to the Court, the use of deeply dishonorable and immoral language, which undermines respect for equality and personal freedom, constitutes harassment — even without subjective intent from the offender. What matters is the objective nature of the behavior and how it was perceived by the victim. In this context, the employee gravely violated fundamental duties of the employment relationship, justifying dismissal.
March 17, 2025
Harassment – Sexual harassment
Workplace harassment: victim’s sole testimony deemed credible
Court of Appeal of Turin
An employee was dismissed for just cause for serious sexual harassment against a colleague — kissing her without consent and making inappropriate remarks about her appearance. The first instance court had deemed the testimonies against the worker unreliable and overturned the dismissal.
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision. The judges found the victim’s testimony fully credible, highlighting that in civil proceedings, unlike criminal ones, even a single testimony may suffice to prove the facts. The court also rejected the idea that the victim’s behavior after the incident — such as not immediately reporting or a period of silence — undermined the credibility of her account, stressing that such behavior is not inconsistent with the truthfulness of her narrative.
This ruling sets an important precedent: the credibility of the harassed person cannot be judged based on stereotypes of “ideal” victim behavior or unrealistic expectations about how one should react. The described incident, deemed serious and consistently reported, justified the confirmation of dismissal for just cause.
March 7, 2025
Disability
Disability and physiotherapy: absence unjustified without prior certification
Supreme Court, Labor Section
A civilly disabled employee of a public administration was dismissed after being absent for almost a month without submitting medical certification in a timely manner. She only later produced documentation from a physiotherapy center confirming the treatment.
The case went through several stages of litigation and ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the dismissal and clarified an important principle regarding absence for treatment by disabled employees.
The Court reiterated that, to legitimize such an absence, the employee must provide — at the time of the leave request — valid certification issued by a public healthcare facility or one affiliated with the National Health Service.
Later submission of proof of treatment is not sufficient to justify the absence: what matters is the prior certification needed to legitimize the right to leave. Without such documentation, the absence is considered unjustified and may warrant dismissal.
