The Italian Cassation Court with its sentence 6750 of 10\nMarch 2020, observed that an employer who demoted and left inactive a worker\nreintegrated following a ruling of unlawful dismissal notified to the same, is\nrequired to pay any personal injury sustained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The facts<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nfirst instance Judge partially granted the claim submitted by a worker,\ngranting the request for payment of damages sustained by the worker due to\ndemotion and rejected those aimed at compensation for personal injury. The\ndemotion regarded the worker not being reinstated in the position of agency\ndirector that he had previously held after the verdict of the trial concerning\nthe lawfulness of his prior dismissal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nassigned Appeals Court, partly granting the charges expressed by the worker,\nsentenced the bank employer to compensate the personal injury he sustained and\nrejected (partly granting the incidental appeal and reversing the judgment of\nthe court of first instance) his request aimed at restitution of the harm to\nhis professional reputation and the additional requests for compensation for\ndamages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According\nto the Court of Appeals the request relative to the damage to his professional\nreputation could not be granted since the worker had not exhibited the injuries\nsuffered due to the ascertained demotion. Instead, the district Court, had\ngranted the request for compensation for personal injury given the \u201ccorrect\ndeduction<\/em>\u201d by the worker of the bank\u2019s breach that had forced him, once\nreadmitted on the job, to a substantial inactivity, of the contracted\npathologies and the connections between them and the demotion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nAppeals Court paid the damage, completely placing it as the responsibility of\nthe employer because quantifiable – in the concrete case – at 3% of the\ndisability verified by the court-appointed expert (in a legal context where\nINAIL can only compensate a damage equal to or greater than 6% and therefore\ncorrectly excluding any question of differential damage).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Objecting\nto the ruling of second instance the worker appealed to the Cassation Court,\nchallenged by the bank which also submitted cross-appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ndecision of the Court of Cassation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nrejecting the worker\u2019s request for harm to professional reputation, the Court\nof Cassation confirmed that the same had not exhibited, for the period\nconsidered, the injuries resulting from the ascertained demotion. It follows\nthat, according to the Court, which, without prejudice to the employer\u2019s\nfailure to assign the worker to the previous duties, \u201cthe compensation for\nadditional damage is inadmissible, unless you want, inadmissibly, to consider\nthe mere demotion as coinciding with the harm to professional reputation\u201d<\/em>\n(cfr. Court of Cassation S.U. 26972\/2008, no. 5067\/2010, no. 24143\/2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover,\naccording to the Court of Cassation, the trial judges correctly took into account\nthe deduction, by the worker, of the historical fact of the employer\u2019s\nbreach<\/strong>, that had left him practically inactive<\/strong>, indication of the\ncontracted pathologies <\/strong>and the causation between<\/strong> them and the\ndemotion, as well as the presentation of the medical documentation attesting\nthe disease and his employment from the inferred demotion.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n According\nto the Court of Cassation, the trial judges clarified, in general terms based\non case studies on lawfulness (cfr. ex multis Court of Cassation no. 20807 of\n14 October 2016; also see Court of Cassation no. 9166 of 10 April 2017; Court\nof Cassation no. 27669 of 2017 and no. 25618 of 2018), as \u201cthe mere welfare\nindemnity cannot be considered exhaustive of the right to complete protection\nof health, based on the constitution, thus having to admit the complete\ncompensation of personal injury<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nworker had in fact provided all of the allegations necessary for compensation\nof a damage completely the responsibility of the employer because less than the\ncoverage of welfare indemnity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To\nconclude, the Court of Cassation rejected all of the grievances and confirmed\nwhat had been ruled on appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Italian Cassation Court with its sentence 6750 of 10 March 2020, observed that an employer who demoted and left inactive a worker reintegrated following a ruling of unlawful dismissal notified to the same, is required to pay any personal injury sustained. The facts The first instance Judge partially granted the claim submitted by a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[167,177,190],"tags":[1109,1110],"class_list":{"0":"post-24287","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"hentry","6":"category-case-law","7":"category-insights","9":"tag-danno-biologico-en","10":"tag-lavoratore-reintegrato-en"},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n