With Ordinance No. 32952 of 17 December 2025, the Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, ruled that a final conviction for stalking and abuse can justify dismissal for just cause, even when the acts were committed outside the workplace.
In the case at hand, a sanitation worker was dismissed by their employer following a final criminal conviction for stalking, aggravated personal injury, and property damage against their former spouse. The Court of Appeal of Naples, overturning the first-instance ruling, had declared the dismissal unlawful, holding that the contested acts fell exclusively within the employee’s private sphere and had neither affected the company’s reputation nor the performance of their work duties.
According to the judges of the Court of Appeal, moreover, the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement would have allowed dismissal only in the presence of offenses punishable by penalties exceeding a certain threshold or of conduct committed in the workplace—conditions that, in the case at hand, were not met.
The Supreme Court upheld the company’s appeal, criticizing the approach taken by the territorial court. In particular, the judges reaffirmed, citing well-established case law, that extra-workplace unlawful conduct can have disciplinary relevance, as the employee is bound not only to perform their work duties but also to comply with ancillary obligations, including refraining from off-duty behavior capable of harming the employer’s moral or material interests or undermining the trust-based relationship with the employer.
Special attention was given to the interpretation of the clauses of the collective agreement. The Court clarified that the enumeration of cases of “just cause” in collective bargaining agreements is merely illustrative and does not limit the application of the legal concept under Article 2119 of the Italian Civil Code. Collective provisions serve as one of the parameters for evaluation but do not exclude the possibility that other, sufficiently serious conduct may justify dismissal.
In the specific case, the Supreme Court considered the interpretation that confined the protection of personal dignity to acts committed solely in the workplace to be incorrect. According to the judges, conduct characterized by habitual violence, physical and psychological domination, and a failure to respect the dignity of others can affect an employee’s professional reliability, especially when the duties involve public interaction and require self-control and integrity in interpersonal relations.
From this perspective, a final criminal conviction for stalking and abuse was deemed capable of constituting a serious breach of contractual obligations, justifying dismissal for just cause, regardless of the fact that the acts occurred outside the workplace.
In conclusion, the ruling reaffirms that an employee is not only required to perform work duties but also to maintain, both inside and outside the company, behavior consistent with the obligations of fairness, good faith, and respect for the dignity of others. Extra-workplace conduct of particular seriousness, resulting in a final criminal conviction, can irreversibly compromise the trust relationship and justify dismissal.
With Judgment No. 9135 of November 19, 2025, the Labour Section of the Court of Rome held that the dismissal for objective justified reason (i.e. “giustificato motivo oggettivo”, dismissal based on organisational, economic or productive grounds) served on an employee working as a graphic designer was lawful, within the context of a corporate reorganisation based, among other things, on the use of artificial intelligence systems to support residual activities.
In the case at hand, the termination was justified by the company on the grounds of a severe economic and financial crisis and the resulting corporate reorganisation, aimed at concentrating resources on high-tech activities connected to its core business, together with a reduction of sectors considered non-essential.
The employee challenged the dismissal, alleging that it was merely pretextual. The employee argued that her duties had not been genuinely eliminated but rather redistributed among other employees and further complained of a breach of the employer’s duty of repêchage (i.e. the obligation to seek alternative positions within the company before dismissing an employee), in the absence of any redeployment offer.
Following the evidentiary phase, the Court found that the existence of a significant corporate crisis had been proven, as evidenced, inter alia, by workforce reductions, corporate restructuring, disposal of real estate assets and the initiation of crisis management procedures. It was also established that graphic design activities had been progressively downsized and that the related duties had been partly absorbed by senior staff and performed with the support of artificial intelligence tools, capable of ensuring cost savings and operational efficiency.
In particular, witness evidence showed that, within the reorganisation process, the head of the creative team had begun to carry out the claimant’s duties directly, with the support of artificial intelligence systems, in a context of resource rationalisation and cost containment. Over time, this process led to the complete discontinuation of graphic design activities and the consequent elimination of the position.
On the basis of these elements, the Court held that the organisational structure adopted was consistent with the company’s business strategy and could not be reviewed on its merits, judicial scrutiny being limited to verifying the actual existence of business needs and the causal link between the reorganisation and the dismissal. From this perspective, the use of artificial intelligence was regarded as a legitimate element of the efficiency-enhancing process, capable of affecting the assessment of the functional relevance of the eliminated position.
With regard to the duty of repêchage, the Court held that the employer had discharged its burden of proof, emphasising the progressive reduction of staff, the technical specialisation of the remaining positions and the absence of roles compatible with the employee’s professional profile. It was also noted that, following the dismissal, no new hires had been made in positions corresponding to the claimant’s skills.
In conclusion, the ruling confirms that, where a reorganisation is genuine, effective and not merely pretextual, the use of artificial intelligence as an operational support tool may contribute to justifying the elimination of a position and, consequently, a dismissal for objective justified reason, without in itself constituting a violation of employee protections.
Altri insights correlati:
With judgment no. 4087 of 4 November 2025, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation – Labour Section – confirmed the legitimacy of a dismissal for just cause imposed on an employee who had misappropriated company products, focusing in particular on the principle of promptness in disciplinary charges.
In the case examined, an employee working at a pharmacy had been dismissed for having taken, between December 2014 and February 2015, products intended for sale, resulting in a shortage of significant economic value. The employer proceeded to issue the disciplinary charge in March 2015, once the internal administrative and accounting checks necessary to reconstruct the extent and systematic nature of the conduct had been completed.
The employee challenged the dismissal, alleging a breach of the principle of promptness in the disciplinary charge. Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, however, found the dismissal to be lawful, emphasizing the seriousness of the established conduct and its suitability to irreversibly undermine the relationship of trust. The courts of merits also ruled out any lateness in the disciplinary charge, considering the time elapsed to be justified by the complexity of the investigations carried out and by the seriousness of the conduct established.
The Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the employee’s appeal, reiterating that the principle of promptness in disciplinary charges is not absolute, but must be assessed in light of the circumstances of the specific case. In particular, the time required by the employer to acquire full and reliable knowledge of the facts may justify a postponement of the charge, without this, in itself, rendering the dismissal unlawful.
In conclusion, the ruling confirms that the misappropriation of company products constitutes a serious breach of the duties of fairness and loyalty and may justify dismissal for just cause, even where the disciplinary charge is brought some time after the conduct, provided that the delay is justified by the manner in which the facts were ascertained.
Summary
1. Regulatory framework of the employee’s right to criticize
Regulatory Framework
The employee’s right to criticize constitutes a specific expression of the freedom of thought guaranteed by Article 21 of the Italian Constitution, as an aspect of the individual’s moral personality that is exercised even within the employment relationship. This right also finds its foundation in Article 2 of the Constitution, which protects human dignity and the inviolable rights of the person in social relations. From a supranational perspective, it is further supported by Articles 10 of the ECHR (which reaffirms that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression”) and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, both of which establish freedom of expression as an essential element of democratic citizenship.
However, in line with the relative and balanced nature of fundamental rights, the employee’s right to criticize is subject to limitations arising from the need to reconcile it with other constitutionally protected values. On the one hand, this includes the protection of a person’s honor, reputation, and dignity (Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution). On the other hand, it encompasses the freedom of private economic initiative (Article 41 of the Constitution), which cannot be undermined by forms of expression that damage the company’s image or operational efficiency.
Continue reading the full version published on Il Modulo 24 Contenzioso Lavoro.
The use of geolocation tools may be considered lawful when the monitoring is targeted, proportionate, and aimed at verifying unlawful conduct.
With judgment no. 30821 of 24 November 2025, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, Labour Section, upheld the lawfulness of a dismissal for just cause imposed on an employee on the basis of evidence obtained from a GPS system installed in a company vehicle.
The Court reiterated that the use of geolocation tools may be considered lawful where the monitoring is targeted, proportionate, and aimed at ascertaining unlawful conduct, without amounting to a form of generalised surveillance of the performance of work duties.
The ruling fits within the framework of the well-established case law on defensive monitoring, further clarifying the scope of application of Article 4 of the Workers’ Statute and the conditions under which data collected through technological tools may be used for disciplinary purposes.
The case originated from a dismissal for just cause imposed by a company on an employee engaged in a security guard service, carried out with the use of a company vehicle equipped with a satellite tracking system.
Following reports from clients regarding service deficiencies, the company initiated a series of internal checks aimed at reconstructing the manner in which the work activity was carried out during the guard shifts. These checks focused on the analysis of the geolocation data of the company vehicle, in order to verify the consistency between what the employee had reported in the service logs and what emerged from the GPS records.
The data showed that, on three separate occasions, during working hours, the employee had stopped the vehicle and remained inside it for a significant period of time. This circumstance was inconsistent with the information provided in the service reports, in which the employee had stated that, during the same time slots, he had travelled to locations different from those actually indicated by the satellite tracking data.
On the basis of these findings, the company proceeded with a disciplinary charge, considering that the employee’s conduct was not consistent with the operational requirements of the security service and constituted a breach of contractual obligations.
Moreover, the irregularities detected did not represent an isolated episode, but rather formed part of a repeated pattern of conduct, which had already been the subject of previous disciplinary measures resulting in conservative sanctions. In light of the seriousness and recurrence of the conduct, the employer therefore proceeded with the dismissal for just cause.
The employee challenged the dismissal, arguing, inter alia, the unlawfulness of the monitoring carried out through the GPS system and the inadmissibility of the related data for disciplinary purposes, alleging a breach of Article 4 of Law No. 300/1970 (Workers’ Statute).
The Court of Appeal, seized of the dispute, dismissed the challenge, holding the dismissal to be lawful. In particular, the appellate judges classified the checks carried out by the company as defensive monitoring, as they were aimed at ascertaining potentially unlawful conduct detrimental to the company’s organisation, which had emerged following specific complaints from clients.
According to the appellate court, those checks did not amount to surveillance of the ordinary performance of work duties, but rather responded to the need to verify a possible breach of the duties of fairness and loyalty incumbent upon the employee. Consequently, the monitoring was deemed to fall outside the scope of application of Article 4 of the Workers’ Statute.
From a substantive standpoint, the Court of Appeal also noted that the conduct ascertained was such as to significantly undermine the fiduciary relationship, particularly in light of the repeated nature of the behaviour and the prior disciplinary sanctions already imposed on the employee.
The employee lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court of Cassation against the second-instance decision, arguing, among other grounds, the unlawfulness of the GPS-based monitoring and the erroneous classification of such checks as defensive monitoring.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, fully upholding the contested decision. The Court reiterated that an employer may lawfully make use of technological tools, such as geolocation systems installed in company vehicles, where the monitoring is targeted, proportionate, and justified by the need to verify conduct that goes beyond the mere supervision of the performance of work duties.
According to the Supreme Court, in such circumstances the monitoring assumes a defensive nature and is aimed at ascertaining potentially unlawful conduct, with the consequence that the resulting data may be legitimately used for disciplinary purposes.
The Court further clarified that the assessment of whether the monitoring is aimed at detecting unlawful conduct, rather than at supervising work performance, constitutes a finding of fact reserved to the trial court. Such an assessment cannot be reviewed at the legitimacy stage, provided it is supported by a coherent and logically structured reasoning.
In the case at hand, the appellate court had found that the use of GPS data was prompted by specific reports of service deficiencies, that the checks were limited to defined time periods, and that the employee’s conduct was incompatible with the duties of fairness and loyalty, significantly affecting the fiduciary relationship.
Judgment no. 30821/2025 reaffirms the principle that data obtained from GPS systems installed in company vehicles may lawfully form the basis for a dismissal for just cause where the monitoring is attributable to defensive purposes and is functional to ascertaining conduct that breaches contractual obligations.
Continue reading the full version published on Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto de Il Sole 24 Ore.
