Failure to assign individual objectives does not automatically result in compensation for damages
Some workers brought legal action to ascertain the failure to assign individual performance-related objectives for two years, despite the obligation to set them as stipulated in a company-level agreement. They consequently requested the condemnation of the employer to compensate for the damage suffered, alleging the company’s failure to comply.
With ruling no. 1235 of January 20, 2026, the Court of Cassation rejected the workers’ claim, upholding the second-instance ruling, according to which, in order to establish the right to compensation for damages for failure to assign individual objectives, the worker must demonstrate in court that he or she would have had a genuine opportunity to achieve them, since merely demonstrating the employer’s obligation is not sufficient.
According to the Court of Cassation, in fact, an employee’s compensation claim cannot be accepted if it fails to provide specific proof not only of the employee’s presumed individual objectives, but also of all the circumstances essential to demonstrating that said objectives could have been achieved, such as: the working methods adopted, the type of assignment performed, and the employee’s professional characteristics and abilities.
The Court of Cassation reaffirms the rules regarding dismissal in the case of co-employment (“codatorialità” in Italian parlance)
A worker, formally hired by one employer but who was also performing work for two other companies belonging to the same group, filed a lawsuit challenging the dismissal for just cause, claiming, among other things, that the notice of termination had been made exclusively by the formal employer and not by the other companies that were substantive employers.
The Court of Cassation, with order no. 336 of January 7, 2026, established that co-employment (“codatorialità” in Italian parlance), as determined in the first instance judgment, implies joint liability between the formal employer and the substantive employers regarding the initiatives taken by the formal employer. Consequently, the dismissal enacted by the sole formal co-employer has effects on the entire employment relationship without requiring the other substantive co-employers to express an identical termination intent for its effectiveness.
The Supreme Court then established that, in evaluating the dimensional requirements for applying reinstatement protection to the unlawfully dismissed worker (which consists of reinstatement in the workplace and compensation payment), the overall number of workers employed by all employers must be taken into account, as worker protection cannot be limited to an examination of individual companies and not the entire group.
The employer’s conduct in not allowing smart working to vulnerable workers is discriminatory
The case involves an employee suffering from an oncological condition who filed a lawsuit alleging, among other things, discriminatory conduct by her employer due to the failure to assign her to work under smart working conditions, despite the regulations introduced during Covid-19 for vulnerable workers.
According to the Court of Busto Arsizio, which ruled on January 7, 2026, since the employer was aware of the employee’s vulnerability and oncological illness (the employee had notified the company of her status as a vulnerable worker), the employer should have immediately assigned the employee to remote or smart working.
For the judges, in fact, vulnerable workers, i.e., those at risk of increased vulnerability (immunosuppression, oncological conditions, life-saving therapies, severe disability, etc.), must be protected through smart working and by providing an update to the company’s risk assessment document. The employer’s behavior in not adopting such measures is deemed unlawful as it is discriminatory.
Obligation of reinstatement (“repêchage”) not respected if the employer hires a self-employed worker
An employee of a consortium challenged the dismissal for just cause, arguing – among other things – the violation of the obligation of reinstatement (“repechage”) by the employer.
It emerged, from the first-instance judgment, that at the time of the employee’s dismissal, the company needed to fill the role of human resources manager, which was subsequently assigned to another worker immediately after the dismissal.
In presenting its defense in court, the employer demonstrated that for the role of human resources manager, the company had not hired a subordinate worker, but rather a self-employed worker, entering into a collaboration contract with the latter.
The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 31312 of December 1, 2025, established that, for the purposes of verifying compliance with the repêchage obligation, what matters is the existence of an employment position that can be assigned to the employee at risk of dismissal, without regard to the qualification of the relationship subsequently established to fill said position, whether self-employed or subordinate.
In fact, according to the judges of legitimacy, it would be all too easy for the employer to evade the reinstatement obligation by satisfying its unavoidable work needs (in this case that of the human resources manager) by resorting to contractual figures other than subordinate employment.
STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LEGAL NEWS. CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE!