Categories: Insights, Case Law


27 Aug 2017

The objective nature of discriminatory dismissal and the subjective nature of retaliatory dismissal

The Court of Cassation, with judgement No. 14456 dated 9 June 2017, has intervened again on the distinction between discriminatory dismissal and retaliatory dismissal. The Court, intervening on the matter detailed in judgement No. 6575 dated 5 April 2016 issued by the Court itself, clarified that discriminatory dismissal is objective since it is based on the breaching of pre-established laws both at the national and European level in force to protect specific interests such as political orientation, religious rights, belonging to a union or participation to union work, race, language, gender, disability, age or sexual orientation or personal beliefs of the employee (see art. 3, Law No. 108/1990; art. 4, Law No. 604/1966; art. 15, Law No. 300/1970). On the contrary, retaliatory dismissal does not have an objective nature, and it does not operate in an automatic fashion. In such case, not only the employer’s reasons must be unjustified but it is also necessary that the reason deemed unlawful is exclusive and decisive such as an employer’s reaction to an employee’s lawful behaviour, that however is unwelcome. Essentially, a retaliatory dismissal and a discriminatory dismissal are two well distinct cases, being the qualifying element in the case of (i) discriminatory dismissal represented by the discriminatory conduct and (ii) that of the retaliatory dismissal represented by the unlawfulness of the reason (exclusive and decisive).

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 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…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…