In its Order No. 16358 of June 17, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the topic of dismissal for just cause, clarifying the distribution of the burden of proof and the appropriate approach that courts must adopt when the dismissal is based on multiple charges.
The case involved a disciplinary dismissal imposed by a symphony foundation (the “Foundation”) on a lyric singer during her sick leave. The employee was subject to two charges: first, leaving her residence during hours of medical availability, and second, engaging in various activities (such as dining out with her partner, shopping, and singing at religious events) despite her certified illness.
The Naples Tribunal rejected the employee’s appeal at both summary and full opposition stages (under the “Fornero Procedure”), upholding the legitimacy of the dismissal. The Naples Court of Appeal reversed the decision, ruling the dismissal unlawful and ordering the employee’s reinstatement along with eight months’ wage compensation.
The appellate court focused primarily on one of the charges, considering the singing activity during sick leave to be minor, occasional, and not amounting to professional work. Based on that, the court held that the alleged misconduct was unfounded.
The Foundation filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate court failed to assess the second, independent charge.
The Supreme Court upheld the Foundation’s claim on this point, overturning the ruling and remanding the case to a different panel of the Naples Court of Appeal for a new judgment.
The Court criticized the lower court for basing its decision solely on one charge. It reiterated the principle that, in cases of dismissal for just cause based on multiple allegations, each allegation may independently justify the sanction unless it is proven that only the cumulative effect of all the charges would warrant termination.
According to this principle, the employer need not prove that the dismissal depends on the totality of conduct, whereas the burden shifts to the employee to show that none of the charges, taken individually, would be serious enough to justify termination. The appellate court failed to consider this and omitted evaluation of one of the charges, thereby violating this principle.
Other related insights:
Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.
Fill in the form