Caregivers and indirect discrimination: the Italian Supreme Court protects employees who assist a disabled family member.
By ruling no. 9104 of 13 April 2026, the Italian Supreme Court holds that an employee who assists a family member with a disability may also benefit from the protections against indirect discrimination, where they suffer unfavourable treatment by reason of the caregiving activity performed.
The case concerned an employee, mother of a disabled child, who had requested to be permanently assigned to the morning shift in order to reconcile work and caregiving duties. Drawing on the interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court extends the anti-discrimination protections to caregivers, requiring the employer: (i) to adopt reasonable accommodations suitable to enable the caregiver to assist the family member; (ii) to adopt structural measures in consideration of the specific features of the caregiver’s position.
Particular attention will therefore be required, since omissive conduct is also relevant: the Italian Supreme Court censures even the failure to concretely assess alternative solutions.
Working abroad, but Italian law still applies: the Italian Supreme Court protects employees dismissed beyond national borders.
By ruling no. 6644 of 20 March 2026, the Italian Supreme Court confirms the application of Italian employment law even where the work is performed on a permanent basis abroad, provided that a close connection between the parties and the Italian legal system remains in place.
In the examined case, although the employee had carried out his work in Romania and the contract referred to Romanian law, the significant prevalence of connecting factors with Italy – such as the contract being drafted in Italian and the initial hiring having taken place in Italy, the payment of social security contributions in Italy, the express reference to the Italian Privacy Code, the reliance on legal institutions such as TFR (severance pay), the thirteenth-month salary and statutory holidays, the dismissal having been served by the Italian registered office, and payslips bearing the letterhead of the company’s Italian offices – leads to the finding of a closer connection with Italy. This entails the application of Italian legislation on protection against unlawful dismissal as an overriding mandatory provision.
NASpI unemployment benefit and consensual terminations in protected proceedings: the Italian Supreme Court sets clear limits.
By ruling no. 6988 of 24 March 2026, the Italian Supreme Court clarifies that NASpI is not payable in the event of consensual termination of the employment relationship, not even where the agreement is reached in protected proceedings. The only exception concerns agreements that fall within the specific conciliation procedure provided for by Article 7 of Law no. 604/1966, namely those entered into following the notice of dismissal for objective justified reason. In all other cases, any benefit already received must be returned to INPS.
The Italian Supreme Court further excludes any possibility of applying by analogy Article 6 of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 — concerning the so-called facilitated conciliation offer — since the matter is already specifically governed by Article 3, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree no. 22/2015.
Simulation of illness: the medical certificate weakens the employer’s presumptive evidence.
By ruling no. 8738 of 8 April 2026, the Italian Supreme Court once again rules on the limits of presumptive evidence in disciplinary dismissals for simulation of illness, laying down a principle of significant practical interest for companies.
In cases of disciplinary dismissal for simulation of illness, the burden of proving the just cause lies with the employer pursuant to Article 5 of Law no. 604/1966 and may be discharged also by way of presumption, through an inferential reasoning based on serious, precise and consistent elements pursuant to Article 2729 of the Italian Civil Code.
However, the Court clarifies a crucial point: the existence of a medical certificate attesting to the illness alleged to be simulated is, in itself, capable of undermining the judge’s presumptive reasoning, depriving of seriousness and consistency the indicia on which the probabilistic inference of the simulated nature of the illness is based. In the face of a medical certificate, therefore, the body of indicia gathered by the employer will need to be particularly solid in order to sustain the accusation of simulation and to justify the dismissal.