The Supreme Court of Murcia has ruled on a high-profile labor dispute: the dismissal of an employee on sick leave for diabetes was found to be unlawful. The employer justified the decision by claiming the woman was seen drinking tinto de verano during her temporary incapacity, allegedly contradicting her diagnosis and impeding her recovery. However, the court determined that the real reason stemmed from management’s dissatisfaction with the financial costs associated with her absence.
The panel drew attention to a key episode: prior to the dismissal, the manager had suggested the employee terminate her contract, citing monthly company expenses of €700 due to her sick leave. This fact proved decisive for the court, which concluded that the disciplinary claims were merely a pretext, and the real motive was a desire to reduce costs.
Health-based discrimination
The court’s ruling emphasizes that the employer’s actions violated the provisions of Law 15/2022 on the guarantee of equality and non-discrimination. The law expressly prohibits dismissals and other adverse measures on grounds of illness or temporary incapacity. The court stated that the employee’s rights to equality and to physical and moral integrity, guaranteed by the Constitution, had been infringed.
As a result, the company is obliged not only to reinstate the woman in her previous position, but also to pay her €24,000 in compensation for moral damages. In addition, the employer must pay all outstanding amounts for the period of forced absence.
Practical consequences for the labor market
This decision strengthens the protection of employees on sick leave and sets an important precedent for similar disputes. The court emphasized that not every behavior outside of work can serve as grounds for dismissal if it does not hinder recovery. The employer’s motive becomes crucial—if it is related to discrimination due to illness, the dismissal is considered invalid.
Labor conflicts and court rulings on them regularly attract public attention in Spain. For example, a high-profile case concerning contradictions in the testimonies of former PP leaders in the case on surveillance of Bárcenas was previously considered in Madrid— details of this process are available here.
Context and significance
The court ruling in Murcia underscores that the company’s economic interests cannot justify discrimination against employees based on their health status. For the Spanish labor market, this is a signal of the need for strict compliance with workers’ rights, especially regarding temporary incapacity. Such cases set precedents that influence employer behavior across the country.
