{"id":25704,"date":"2026-01-27T15:17:04","date_gmt":"2026-01-27T14:17:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/news\/the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-may-justify-a-dismissal\/"},"modified":"2026-03-11T12:10:01","modified_gmt":"2026-03-11T11:10:01","slug":"the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-may-justify-a-dismissal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/en\/insights\/the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-may-justify-a-dismissal\/","title":{"rendered":"DID YOU KNOW THAT\u2026 the use of artificial intelligence may justify a dismissal for objective justified reason?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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. \u201cgiustificato motivo oggettivo\u201d, 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\u2019s duty of rep\u00eachage (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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On the basis of these elements, the Court held that the organisational structure adopted was consistent with the company\u2019s 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 rep\u00eachage, 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\u2019s professional profile. It was also noted that, following the dismissal, no new hires had been made in positions corresponding to the claimant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Altri insights correlati:<\/strong>\u202f<\/p>\n\n\n\n