Categories: Insights, Case Law

Tag: Dismissal, Licenziamento, preavviso


1 May 2019

Pregnancy arising during the notice period does not affect the validity of the dismissal

The Court of Cassation, in order No. 9268 of 3 April 2019, has affirmed that the dismissal for justified objective reasons of a pregnant employee during the notice period is lawful but unenforceable, as occurs in the case of termination during sick leave or absence for injuries.

 

The facts

 

In overturning the first instance ruling, the territorially competent Court of Appeal rejected a worker’s application to overturn her dismissal for justified objective reasons pursuant to art. 54 of Legislative Decree 151/2001. In detail, the Court of Appeal held that the dismissal had been formally notified on the date the letter of dismissal was received, regardless of the fact that related effects would arise at the end of the notice period.

 

In fact, the trial court, having inferred the actual start date of the pregnancy from the medical records submitted and from the expert witness report acquired in the first instance proceeding, found that the pregnancy started after the date of dismissal.

 

The worker challenged the decision before the Court of Cassation, objecting, among other things, that the onset of pregnancy during the notice period triggered the applicability of the safeguards set out in Legislative Decree 151/2001. This is so because the employment relationship continues during the notice period, with the associated rights and obligations, unless the worker accepts to terminate the relationship immediately or earlier.

 

The Court of Cassation confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, rejecting the worker’s application.

 

The ruling of the Court

 

The Court of Cassation reviewing the case highlighted that, according to established case law, a dismissal is a unilateral act that becomes effective from the moment the employer’s intentions are manifested and made known to the worker. This is so notwithstanding the fact that effects of the dismissal – typically, the termination of the employment relationship – may be deferred to a later date.

 

Consequently, the assessment of the conditions legitimating the right of termination must be conducted “with reference to the moment the unilateral act was formally notified and not with reference, in the case of dismissal with notice, to the successive end date of the notice period”.

 

According to the Court of Cassation, this was the principle on which the lower courts had based their decision. In fact, the lower courts had excluded the invalidity of the dismissal pursuant to art. 54 of Legislative Decree 151/2019 on the grounds that the dismissal had been communicated and formally notified to the worker when she was not pregnant.

 

For the Court of Cassation, the Court of Appeal had also rightly made reference to art. 54, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree 151/2001, which considers null and void a notice of dismissal given “from the start of the pregnancy to the end of the maternity leave and until the child is one year old” and not when the related effects arise.

 

Therefore, a pregnancy arising during the notice period does not affect the validity of the dismissal notified to the worker at an earlier date. The Supreme Court did highlight that a pregnancy is an event that may satisfy the requirements, pursuant to art. 2110 of the civil code, to suspend the notice period.

However, in the case at hand, the worker’s claim was founded solely on the invalidity of the dismissal and not also on unenforceability ensuing from the suspension of the notice period, with the case thus rejected.

 

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

8 Apr 2026

Management of corporate email after termination of employment: the limits according to the Italian Data Protection Authority

The Italian Data Protection Authority (i.e. “Garante per la protezione dei dati personali”) has once again provided guidance on how employers should manage corporate email accounts after the…

8 Apr 2026

Oral dismissal: the burden of proof on the employee

With order no. 4077 of 23 February 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of oral dismissal, holding that an employee challenging the termination of the employment…

8 Apr 2026

DID YOU KNOW THAT… incompatibility between colleagues may justify the transfer of an employee? 

The Italian Supreme Court, with order no. 4198 of 25 February 2026, held that an employee’s transfer may be lawfully implemented also in the presence of a situation…

7 Apr 2026

The boundary between rest and inactivity in the management of working hours (AIDP – HR Online, 7 April 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Alesia Hima)

In the organizational language of companies, terms such as “breaks,” “waiting times,” or “downtime” are often used. In operational practice, these expressions tend to be treated almost as…

17 Mar 2026

Equal pay: green light for the decree on pay equality and wage transparency (People are People, 16 March 2026 – Claudia Cerbone, Martina De Angeli)

Claudia Cerbone and Martina De Angeli, professionals at the De Luca & Partners firm, author this article dedicated to the draft legislative decree approved last February 5 by…

10 Mar 2026

The transfer of the employee is lawful when there is incompatibility with the company environment (Camera di Commercio Italo-Francese, 10 March 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 4198 of 25 February 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) – Labour Section – reaffirmed that a situation of environmental incompatibility may justify…