Categories: Insights


26 Jul 2010

Hiring of disabled workers is not compulsory if the employment status is “similar” (Court of Cassation, no. 1058/2010)

The Court of Cassation stated that the employer is entitled to refuse to hire a disabled worker whether if the latter has an employment status different from the one required by the employer itself or just a “similar” status, i.e. not exactly equal to the one requested. According to art. 2, L. no. 68/99, the employment status shall not be considered as an abstract definition, but has to be interpreted as a concrete specification of the technical and professional skills required for the hiring of the disabled worker. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, in fact, both the ratio legis and the definition of “targeted hiring” clearly indicate that the hiring has to be executed only if it answers to all the requirements demanded by the employer, to be interpreted, if necessary, in accordance with the provisions of the applicable National Bargaining Collective Agreements (ex art. 10 L. no. 68/99). Finally, the Court of Cassation clarified that, being the ultimate scope of the law discipline the defense of psycho-physical integrity of the disabled worker as well as a proper balance between employer needs and worker interests, the definition of professional status required by the employer shall be considered as binding, finding a complete correspondence in the authorization needed for the hiring.
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

12 Oct 2026

“AI tools, remote work and confidential data: employer liability in a borderless environment” – IBA Conference 2026

At the IBA Annual Conference 2026 in Copenhagen, our Managing Partner Vittorio De Luca moderated a panel on one of the most pressing challenges facing employers today: the…

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…