The Second Chamber has ruled that the dismissal of a worker on health grounds was discriminatory, given the failure to prove that there were no posts available for his redeployment
In Decision No. 02514-2026, classified as a landmark judgement, the Second Chamber ruled on a special protection proceeding brought before the special courts by an agricultural day labourer against a pineapple-growing company. The worker was diagnosed with advanced kidney failure which prevented him from working whilst exposed to the sun and was dismissed on 7 February 2025, with the employer bearing liability, on the grounds that there were no other posts in which to place him. The company maintained that it had carried out an analysis using a job matrix, in accordance with Article 254 of the Labour Code, and concluded that there were no posts compatible with the medical advice.
The Court upheld the worker’s appeal. It ruled that the company had failed to prove, to the standard required by the burden of proof in this matter, that there were no posts available to redeploy him. In particular, (i) it failed to justify why it did not redeploy him to the post of ‘materials storekeeper’, which its own job matrix had classified as compatible provided that the medical restrictions were observed; (ii) it excluded him from posts in the packing department on the grounds of lack of experience, without making any effort to verify whether he met the requirements; and (iii) it dismissed him despite the existence of evidence suggesting that new recruitment would likely be necessary for posts compatible with his medical diagnosis.
In the Court’s view, these circumstances cast doubt on the objectivity of the dismissal and succeeded in refuting the criteria adopted by the employer. Consequently, it quashed the lower court’s judgement and ordered the reinstatement of the employee with full enjoyment of their rights, payment of wages lost from 7 February 2025 until reinstatement, capped at a maximum of twenty-four months’ wages, plus interest and both parties’ legal costs.
The ruling is of particular importance for employers facing medical restrictions among their staff. Relocation cannot be satisfied by a merely formal analysis: it is necessary to document the specific steps taken, objectively justify why each potentially compatible post was ruled out, and consider foreseeable recruitment needs before making a decision to terminate employment. Dismissal on health grounds without such supporting evidence exposes the company to the risk of the dismissal being declared null and void, reinstatement and the payment of back pay.