Torna alla ricerca
Cass. sez. lavoro, 09.01.2025 n. 460/2025, pres. Patti, rel. Riverso, XY (avv.ti Pallini e Lombardo Di Monte Iato) c. KX (avv.ti Pulsoni, Rapone, Pomares).
| | |Licenziamento discriminatorio – onere della prova a carico del lavoratore – limiti – concorso del carattere discriminatorio con un legittimo motivo economico – irrilevanza – requisito della unicità e determinatezza del motivo – rilevanza per il solo licenziamento ritorsivo e non per quello discriminatorio – applicazione alla discriminazione per disabilità - fattispecie.
Un licenziamento può essere considerato direttamente o indirettamente discriminatorio – a condizione che il lavoratore fornisca elementi fattuali che, se pur privi delle caratteristiche di gravità, precisione e concordanza, sono idonei a rendere plausibile l’esistenza della discriminazione - anche qualora concorra con una ragione legittima di recesso quale il motivo economico, posto che, a differenza di quanto accade per il motivo ritorsivo, la prova della unicità e determinatezza del motivo non rileva nel caso di licenziamento discriminatorio (nella specie la Corte ha cassato la sentenza che aveva omesso l’esame del carattere discriminatorio del licenziamento di una lavoratrice disabile per essere detto licenziamento intimato con una ragione economica ritenuta sussistente, pur riconoscendo che nel corso della assenza della lavoratrice erano stati posti in essere comportamenti vessatori che, pur non configurando mobbing, esorbitavano dal legittimo esercizio dei poteri datoriali).
Discriminatory dismissal - burden of proof on the worker - limits - concurrent discriminatory character with a legitimate economic motive - irrelevance - requirement of uniqueness and definiteness of the motive - relevance only for retaliatory dismissal and not for discriminatory dismissal - relevance to discrimination on grounds of disability - facts of the case.
A dismissal may be regarded as directly or indirectly discriminatory - provided that the employee furnishes factual elements which, albeit lacking the characteristics of gravity, precision and concordance, are capable of rendering the existence of discrimination plausible - even where it concurs with a legitimate reason for dismissal such as the economic motive, given that, unlike in the case of retaliatory motive the proof of the uniqueness and definiteness of the motive is not relevant in the case of discriminatory dismissal (in the specific case, the Court overturned the judgment that had omitted to examine the discriminatory nature of the dismissal of a disabled employee on the grounds that the dismissal was made for an economic reason deemed to exist, even though it acknowledged that during the employee\'s absence, harassing conduct had been carried out which, although not amounting to mobbing, exceeded the legitimate exercise of the employer\'s powers).
Discriminatory dismissal - burden of proof on the worker - limits - concurrent discriminatory character with a legitimate economic motive - irrelevance - requirement of uniqueness and definiteness of the motive - relevance only for retaliatory dismissal and not for discriminatory dismissal - relevance to discrimination on grounds of disability - facts of the case.
A dismissal may be regarded as directly or indirectly discriminatory - provided that the employee furnishes factual elements which, albeit lacking the characteristics of gravity, precision and concordance, are capable of rendering the existence of discrimination plausible - even where it concurs with a legitimate reason for dismissal such as the economic motive, given that, unlike in the case of retaliatory motive the proof of the uniqueness and definiteness of the motive is not relevant in the case of discriminatory dismissal (in the specific case, the Court overturned the judgment that had omitted to examine the discriminatory nature of the dismissal of a disabled employee on the grounds that the dismissal was made for an economic reason deemed to exist, even though it acknowledged that during the employee\'s absence, harassing conduct had been carried out which, although not amounting to mobbing, exceeded the legitimate exercise of the employer\'s powers).