With Ordinance No. 32952 of 17 December 2025, the Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, ruled that a final conviction for stalking and abuse can justify dismissal for just cause, even when the acts were committed outside the workplace.
In the case at hand, a sanitation worker was dismissed by their employer following a final criminal conviction for stalking, aggravated personal injury, and property damage against their former spouse. The Court of Appeal of Naples, overturning the first-instance ruling, had declared the dismissal unlawful, holding that the contested acts fell exclusively within the employee’s private sphere and had neither affected the company’s reputation nor the performance of their work duties.
According to the judges of the Court of Appeal, moreover, the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement would have allowed dismissal only in the presence of offenses punishable by penalties exceeding a certain threshold or of conduct committed in the workplace—conditions that, in the case at hand, were not met.
The Supreme Court upheld the company’s appeal, criticizing the approach taken by the territorial court. In particular, the judges reaffirmed, citing well-established case law, that extra-workplace unlawful conduct can have disciplinary relevance, as the employee is bound not only to perform their work duties but also to comply with ancillary obligations, including refraining from off-duty behavior capable of harming the employer’s moral or material interests or undermining the trust-based relationship with the employer.
Special attention was given to the interpretation of the clauses of the collective agreement. The Court clarified that the enumeration of cases of “just cause” in collective bargaining agreements is merely illustrative and does not limit the application of the legal concept under Article 2119 of the Italian Civil Code. Collective provisions serve as one of the parameters for evaluation but do not exclude the possibility that other, sufficiently serious conduct may justify dismissal.
In the specific case, the Supreme Court considered the interpretation that confined the protection of personal dignity to acts committed solely in the workplace to be incorrect. According to the judges, conduct characterized by habitual violence, physical and psychological domination, and a failure to respect the dignity of others can affect an employee’s professional reliability, especially when the duties involve public interaction and require self-control and integrity in interpersonal relations.
From this perspective, a final criminal conviction for stalking and abuse was deemed capable of constituting a serious breach of contractual obligations, justifying dismissal for just cause, regardless of the fact that the acts occurred outside the workplace.
In conclusion, the ruling reaffirms that an employee is not only required to perform work duties but also to maintain, both inside and outside the company, behavior consistent with the obligations of fairness, good faith, and respect for the dignity of others. Extra-workplace conduct of particular seriousness, resulting in a final criminal conviction, can irreversibly compromise the trust relationship and justify dismissal.
