Employment and protection against discriminatory dismissal 

The Civil Cassation, labour section, judgment of 22 April 2024, no. 10744 clarified that, when faced with a request for compulsory employment for a person with disabilities, refusal to hire is only legitimate if the employer provides rigorous proof of an absolute incompatibility between the worker's state of health and all available tasks in the company. 

The Civil Cassation, labour section, judgment of 7 November 2024, no. 28657 extended the protection of workers with disabilities to working hours, establishing that a unilateral change in the working hours in a part-time contract may be unlawful if it is incompatible with the therapeutic or functional needs of the person with a disability. 

On the subject of dismissals for exceeding the period of sick leave (maximum duration of absence due to illness), the Civil Cassation, labour section, judgement of 6 September 2024, no. 24052 highlighted how considering only the objective aspect of the abstract severity or particularity of the pathologies can degenerate into discrimination against the person with a disability. If the collective agreement does not separate absences strictly related to disability from the general assessment, the worker with a disability is at a disadvantage. In this regard, the judgment of the Civil Cassation, labour section, 22 May 2024, no. 14316 specified that, if the state of disability is known or can be ascertained with ordinary diligence, the employer has the preventive burden of ascertaining whether the absences are related to this condition before proceeding with dismissal for excessive absences from work. This requires a phase of discussion between the parties to identify “reasonable accommodations”. 

The employer also commits discrimination if they dismiss an employee with a disability, violating their obligations to remove obstacles (Civil Cassation, labour section, judgment of 22 May 2024, no. 14307). Furthermore, in the event of a company reorganisation (Civil Cassation, labour section, judgement of 2 July 2024, no. 18094), in order for the dismissal to be lawful, a medical commission must ascertain that it is definitively impossible to re-employ the person with a disability. 

The 2024 case law promotes “reasonable accommodation” as a guiding principle. In Ordinance of 26 February 2024, no. 5048 the Supreme Court overturned a decision that denied the hiring of a social health worker deemed unsuitable for the company due to functional limitations. The Court reiterated that the judge must assess, in concrete terms, whether the work environment can be adapted and whether “reasonable accommodation” is feasible to make it compatible with the individual's functional limitations.  This assessment of “reasonable accommodation” is also found in the judgment of the Civil Cassation, labour section, 21 November 2024, no. 30080, which states that the refusal of a worker with cancer to take up employment at a location far from their home may be justified (pursuant to Article 1460 of the Italian Civil Code) if the company has not first verified the feasibility of accommodations designed to protect the worker's living and care needs.

Social security and financial assistance 

The Civil Cassation, labour section, judgement of 22 November 2024, no. 30152, clarified the correct time for verifying the age requirement for civil disability pension, confirming that the application can only be submitted before reaching the age required by law and must be accepted if the disabling condition is confirmed by that date, even if the retirement age has subsequently been raised. This prevents subsequent regulatory changes from precluding the right to benefits already requested in a timely manner. 

The Modena Tribunal, labour section, judgment of 19 September 2024, no. 708, reiterated the limits on the exercise of the action for recovery of undue payments relating to welfare benefits paid to civil invalids. It was stated that any finding that the requirements for entitlement are not met has no retroactive effect, provided that the beneficiary acted in good faith. It follows that the obligation to repay the sums received arises only from the adoption of the formal revocation measure.

Leave and time off 

The Civil Cassation, labour section, ordinance of 11 September 2024, no. 26417 reiterated the close correlation between the benefits provided under Article 33.6 of Law No. 104/1992 (work leave for workers with disabilities) and the care needs of persons with disabilities. From this perspective, the employer does not have the right to question the days on which such leave is taken or to contest the provision of care at times that do not fully coincide with the work shift. It follows that the provision of care at times that partially differ from those of service does not constitute an abuse of rights, but rather a legitimate way of meeting the vital needs of the person with a disability. This right, which can be classified as a continuing obligation, arises with the administrative application and remains unchanged until any change in the factual conditions is ascertained (Civil Cassation, labour section, judgment no. 30628 of 28 November 2024).

Another aspect of protection concerns the right to choose one's place of work and to oppose transfer (Article 33.5 of Law No. 104/1992). On this point, the Civil Cassation, labour section, ordinance of 2 January 2024, No. 47 clarified that the employer has the burden of proving the existence of organisational reasons that could constitute an obstacle to accepting the worker's request. The trial judge is called upon to strike a balance between freedom of economic initiative and the rights to health and family integrity, giving priority to care needs whenever the employer's reasons are not effective or irreplaceable. This principle has also been adopted by the administrative courts (TAR Toscana, Section I, judgment of 8 October 2024, no. 1132), which has censured measures refusing temporary transfers on generic grounds, imposing on the Administration an obligation to provide specific and precise reasons.

Right to education 

The TAR of Campania, Naples, Section IV, judgment of 13 March 2024, no. 1708, consolidated the position regarding the mandatory nature of comprehensive support in cases of severe disability (Article 3.3, Law 104/1992). The case arose from a complaint by a claimant regarding the insufficiency of the support hours allocated vis-à-vis the actual needs of the child. In this case, the allocation of a specialised teacher for the entire school day was requested, along with compensation for damages caused by the lack of support. The ruling highlights that the decisions of the Operational Working Group (GLO) are central and binding on the Administration, and that failing to assign an adequate number of hours to the child based on their real needs constitutes unlawful behaviour. Consequently, the Administration was found liable for compensation and ordered to pay damages for each month of failure to provide support, thereby strengthening the legal protection of pupils with disabilities and their families. 

The TAR of Lombardy, Brescia, Section II, judgment of 16 October 2024, no. 815, ruled on the applicability of exemptions from compulsory schooling in the presence of particular health situations. The Court legitimised the exemption from the obligation to move on to higher education, recognising the parents' request to remain in nursery school for a child with special needs. The ruling establishes the prevalence of the right to health over the rigidity of school cycles, imposing a balance of constitutional values that favours an individualised assessment of each case.

Other aspects of protection: health and detention 

The Criminal Cassation Court, Section I, judgment of 4 November 2024, no. 40488 clarified the limits and conditions for granting special home detention in the presence of children with disabilities, emphasising the importance of formal and ritual assessment of the severity of the disability in accordance with Law 104/1992. This ensures uniform application and protection of the rights of both the prisoner and the child with disabilities.

The Court of Appeal of Palermo, Section I, judgment of 23 September 2024, No. 1518, stated that the ordinary court has jurisdiction over disputes relating to the implementation of the P.A.I. (Individualised Care Plan) prepared pursuant to Article 14 of Law No. 328 of 2000. In fact, following the adoption of this act, persons with disabilities acquire the subjective right to the effective provision of the benefits and services planned therein, for the performance of which no authoritative power on the part of the public administration is required.

The TAR of Campania, Salerno, Section III, judgment of 5 November 2024, no. 2086 redefined the limits of administrative discretion in healthcare planning. The case originated from an appeal filed by the parents of a minor with autism spectrum disorder against the Local Health Authority of Avellino, seeking recognition of their daughter's right to ABA (Applied Behaviour Analysis) treatment for at least 25 hours per week, in addition to supervision and parent training. The Local Health Authority had prepared a treatment plan based on regional resolutions that imposed strict hourly limits differentiated by age group. The Regional Administrative Court upheld the appeal, partially annulling the relevant resolutions of the Region and the Local Health Authority insofar as they set mandatory hourly limits. The judgment stated that treatment plans for minors with autism spectrum disorders must comply with the principle of personalisation and reaffirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative court in matters of individualised healthcare, emphasising the obligation to guarantee Essential Levels of Care (LEA) in accordance with national guidelines and state legislation, thus ensuring effective protection of the fundamental right to health.