Categories: Insights, Publications

Tag: Corte di Cassazione, Dismissal, Licenziamento, malattia


13 Oct 2021

Employee Legitimate dismissal due to performing other activities while being absent for illness (Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto – Il Sole 24 Ore, 13 October 2021 – Enrico De Luca, Luca Cairoli)

With its order no. 26709 of 1 October 2021, the Court of Cassation expressed its opinion on the legitimacy of dismissals of workers who are caught carrying out activities incompatible with their medical condition, while being absent for illness.

The Supreme Court ruled on the legitimacy of the dismissal for just cause of an employee (who suffers from acute lumbar and sciatic pain) for keeping a lifestyle incompatible with the disease that afflicted him (the worker was caught lifting and handling bags of soil) while being absent for illness. In addition, this lifestyle was likely to affect his recovery and return to work.

The court reached that conclusion based on the findings of the appointed medical examiner who deduced that the symptoms suffered by the employee would have allowed him to carry out the tasks assigned within the limitations imposed by the company physician. Also the court-appointed expert found that the patient’s activities during his absence due to illness, if they are proved, would have prolonged the period of clinical recovery.

The proportionality assessment of the expulsion sanction was confirmed, as performance of other activities by the employee absent due to illness conflicted with the general duties of fairness and good faith and specific contractual obligations of diligence and loyalty.

The worker appealed to the Court of Cassation, citing the infringement and misapplication of Art. 18, paragraph 4, Law no. 300/1970, as his first ground of appeal, arguing that the conduct carried out during the period of illness constituted mere tasks of daily living (pointing out the modesty of the effort made, which consisted in carrying “two simple bags”). He claimed that the medical condition from which he was suffering should be considered to be proven in the light of the recorded medical certificates.

Continue reading the full version published in Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto of Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

1 Sep 2026

Company files deleted from the PC: dismissal lawful even without proof of damage

The matter arises from the disciplinary dismissal of an employee performing general secretarial duties who, upon returning the company computer following a change in her duties, handed back…

1 Sep 2026

Overtime work: a summary schedule is not enough, employees must provide strict evidence of both the hours worked and the extent of the overtime performed

With order no. 20700 of 18 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court once again addressed the issue of overtime work, reiterating that employees claiming overtime pay must strictly…

1 Sep 2026

Did you know that… an individual allowance that has remained unchanged for years may become non-absorbable?

In judgment no. 24475 of 5 August 2026, the Employment Section of the Italian Supreme Court confirmed that an individual allowance (i.e. “superminimo”), although normally subject to the…

3 Aug 2026

Pay Transparency: the first requests from employees are starting to arrive (Il Sole 24 Ore, 3 august 2026 – Vittorio De Luca)

Two months after the decree. Since Legislative Decree 96/2026 came into force on 7 June, according to a flash survey conducted by GIDP, 8% of HR directors have…

30 Jul 2026

Corporate controls and data protection: what balance?

A recent judgment of the Court of Pisa, No. 800 of 13 June 2026, addresses a topic of particular interest for companies: the delicate balance between the protection…

30 Jul 2026

Unfair dismissal and reinstatement: the employee must repay the payment in lieu of notice

With order no. 22187 of 28 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether payment in lieu of notice paid to an employee must be…