Offensive Dismissal: No Compensation Without Proven Offensive Conduct

The mere unlawfulness of a dismissal is not enough to transform an employer’s termination decision into conduct that infringes the employee’s dignity. This principle was reaffirmed by the Italian Supreme Court in Order No. 11929 of 30 April 2026, a ruling likely to have a significant impact on litigation concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from unlawful dismissals.

The decision addresses an issue that has become increasingly relevant in recent years: the growing tendency in employment disputes to seek, alongside reinstatement or monetary remedies, separate compensation for damage to the employee’s image, reputation, or professional dignity.

According to the Supreme Court, however, the distinction between an unlawful dismissal and an offensive dismissal remains clear. It cannot be blurred simply by relying on the seriousness of the accusations made against the employee, or on a subsequent judicial finding that the dismissal was unlawful.

The Case: Three Unlawful Dismissals

The dispute arose from an employment relationship between an employee and a company operating in the petrochemical sector. Within a few months, the employee was subjected to three separate dismissals – two disciplinary dismissals and one dismissal for objective justified reasons. All of which were subsequently declared unlawful in court.

The Court of Appeal of Bologna held that the repeated dismissals, the unfounded nature of the allegations, and the foreseeable notoriety of the matter within the workplace amounted to an offensive dismissal. Therefore, the appellate court ordered the company to pay €50,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. According to the appellate judges, the employee’s professional reputation had been harmed not only by the unlawfulness of the dismissals but also by their inevitable impact within the workplace, aggravated by the manner in which the dismissals were carried out, including the withdrawal of the employee’s access badge to the facility.

The Supreme Court, however, overturned this reasoning.

Unlawful Dismissal vs. Offensive Dismissal: The Difference

The core of the decision lies in the reaffirmation of a well-established principle in Supreme Court of Cassation case law: the offensive nature of a dismissal does not coincide with its unlawfulness.

Referring to a long line of precedents – including Supreme Court judgments No. 12204/2016, No. 23686/2015, No. 5885/2014, and No. 22391/2023 – the Court held that compensation beyond the remedies already provided under Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute may be awarded only where the dismissal is accompanied by:

• particularly offensive conduct;
• harassing or abusive behaviour;
• humiliating or defamatory publicity;
•  conduct damaging the employee’s honour and dignity.

Accordingly, it is not enough for the employer to have made serious allegations that later proved to be unfounded. Nor is it sufficient that the dismissal caused reputational discomfort within the workplace.

According to the Supreme Court, the seriousness of the allegations merely contributes to establishing the groundlessness of the dismissal. It does not, in itself, constitute a basis for awarding separate compensable damage.

The Evidentiary Burden

The key issue therefore becomes proof of the offensive conduct.

The Supreme Court emphasised that an employee seeking compensation for damage arising from an offensive dismissal must not only allege and prove the harm suffered, but also demonstrate the specific offensive manner in which the dismissal was carried out.

In the case at hand, the spread of news about the dismissal within the facility did not result from any defamatory action by the employer. Rather, it was a necessary consequence of the dismissal itself, namely the withdrawal of the company badge required to access the production site.

This aspect is particularly significant in practical terms. The Court appears to draw a clear distinction between the ordinary consequences of a dismissal and conduct that is deliberately offensive or humiliating. Only the latter can justify compensation beyond the ordinary remedies available under employment law.

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

The ruling requires all employment-law practitioners to pay closer attention to how the termination process is managed in practice.

For employers, the decision highlights the need to ensure that disciplinary proceedings remain within the bounds of both procedural and substantive fairness. Employers should avoid unnecessarily humiliating treatment of employees, communications that go beyond organisational needs, or operational measures that may be perceived as degrading.

For employees, the ruling confirms the critical importance of evidence. Claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage must be supported by specific allegations regarding the manner in which the dismissal was carried out, the dissemination of information within or outside the workplace, and the existence of actual harm to the employee’s personal or professional reputation.

In essence, the Supreme Court appears intent on bringing claims for damages arising from dismissals back within stricter legal boundaries, preventing expansive interpretations based solely on a successful challenge to the dismissal.

This article was first published from QuotidianoPiù.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.