Commentary on Judgment No. 10286 of 2024: Dismissal and Marriage in Labor Law

The recent Order No. 10286 of April 16, 2024, from the Court of Cassation, offers important insights regarding the presumption of dismissal due to marriage. This theme, of particular relevance in labor law, is governed by Article 35 of Legislative Decree No. 198 of 2006, known as the Code of Equal Opportunities. The judgment under review is set within a context of collective dismissal, clarifying the conditions of applicability of this presumption.

The Relative Presumption of Dismissal

According to what is established by paragraph 3 of Article 35, the dismissal of a female worker for reasons related to marriage is subject to a relative presumption. This means that, in the event of dismissal, it is presumed that this decision was influenced by the marital status of the worker. Judgment No. 10286 clarifies that this presumption is also applicable in cases of collective dismissal, although exceptions remain, specified in paragraph 5 of the same article.

Relative presumption of dismissal due to marriage pursuant to Article 35, paragraph 3, Legislative Decree No. 198 of 2006 - Collective dismissal - Applicability - Exceptions to the prohibition of employer termination - Exhaustiveness - Consequences. The relative presumption of the connection between dismissal and marriage under Article 35, paragraph 3, Legislative Decree No. 198 of 2006 also applies in the case of collective dismissal, remaining subject to the exceptions to the prohibition of dismissal due to marriage as provided in paragraph 5 of the same regulation, which are to be interpreted strictly, not susceptible to extensive and analogical interpretation, so that the cessation of a single department, however autonomous, cannot be considered an exception to the prohibition of dismissal due to marriage.

Exceptions to the Prohibition of Dismissal

Paragraph 5 of Article 35 establishes some exceptions to the prohibition of dismissal due to marriage. However, these exceptions must be interpreted restrictively and cannot be expanded through an extensive interpretation. The judgment emphasizes that the cessation of a single department cannot be considered a valid reason to evade the prohibition of dismissal in the case of marriage, contrary to what might appear at first glance.

  • Applicability of the presumption in collective dismissals.
  • Restrictive interpretation of exceptions to the prohibition of dismissal.
  • Importance of protecting female workers in the context of marriage.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 10286 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of the rights of female workers in Italy. The clarification of the presumption of dismissal due to marriage and the affirmation of its applicability to collective dismissals highlight the need to ensure a fair and respectful work environment in accordance with equality standards. It is essential that companies understand the implications of these regulations to avoid disputes and ensure respect for workers' rights.

Bianucci Law Firm