A dismissal communicated by message and at a particularly sensitive time ended up going to court and having an unfavorable outcome for the employer. The case involves a bricklayer (bricklayer) who, following a serious health problem, had his contract terminated unexpectedly.
According to the Spanish website, specialized in legal and labor matters, which follows a decision identified in other sources such as STSJ Andalucía 1495/2025, the case was analyzed by the Social Court No. The decision reinforces the legal limits applicable to dismissals when situations of this type are involved, in light of Spanish Law 15/2022 and article 53, paragraph 4, of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores.
According to the same source, the context in which the dismissal occurred was decisive for the outcome of the process.
Dismissal communicated by message
The worker, a first-rate civil construction officer, had a formal contract since May 2022 and worked full-time.
In April 2023, he suffered an acute myocardial infarction, having been placed on sick leave due to temporary incapacity.
A few weeks later, still in that condition, he received a WhatsApp message from the company announcing his dismissal.
Company cited organizational reasons
In the communication sent, the employer justified the decision with organizational and production reasons, associated with the completion of a work.
However, the court considered that this explanation was not enough to eliminate the suspicion of discrimination linked to the moment in which the dismissal occurred.
According to the court decision cited by Noticias Trabajo, the arguments presented did not rule out the idea that the formal cause invoked served to cover up a decision motivated by the worker’s health status.
Court sees illness discrimination
Both the court of first instance and the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia understood that there was a violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination.
According to Noticias Trabajo, the judges considered that the company used a formal justification to cover up a decision motivated by the worker’s health status.
The fact that the dismissal occurred during medical leave was one of the central elements of the analysis. Still, what the courts criticized was not just the fact that the worker was on leave, but the conclusion that there was discrimination due to illness.
Allegation of error did not convince
The company claimed that the communication of the dismissal was the result of a misunderstanding. However, the court highlighted that there was no subsequent attempt to correct or clarify the situation with the worker. This fact was interpreted as an indication that the decision was deliberate.
Consequences for the company
With the declaration of nullity of the dismissal, the company was obliged to reinstate the employee under the same previous conditions.
In addition, you will have to pay the wages that the worker stopped receiving. The decision also includes compensation of R$5,000 for moral damages.
Process went through conciliation
Before going to court, the worker tried to resolve the conflict through a conciliation process.
As no agreement was reached, he decided to take legal action against the company, the contractors and the Spanish Salary Guarantee Fund, FOGASA. The case passed through the Social Court No. 2 of Malaga and the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia.
Decision reinforces legal protection
This case once again highlights the legal protection that exists in Spain against discriminatory dismissals linked to health status.
The legislation provides clear limits for dismissal, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. In the case of objective dismissals, article 53, paragraph 4, of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores determines that the dismissal decision is null and void when it is based on any cause of discrimination prohibited in the Constitution or law, or when it violates fundamental rights.
Decisions like this reinforce the need for strict compliance with labor standards.
Although it is a specific case in Spain, the decision illustrates a relevant point: being on sick leave does not automatically render any dismissal void, but it can be decisive when there is evidence that the company acted because of the worker’s illness.
This is what the courts understood in this case, concluding that the organizational justification presented did not rule out discrimination.
And in Portugal?
In Portugal, a similar case would be analyzed in light of article 53 of the Constitution and articles 24, 25, 381, 389 and 390 of the Labor Code.
Sick leave does not, in itself, prevent any dismissal. But a dismissal that is discriminatory or without a legal basis is unlawful. The Labor Code prohibits discrimination, particularly due to reduced work capacity, disability or chronic illness.
If it is proven that the dismissal occurred because of the employee’s health status or a similar situation of discrimination, the dismissal could be considered unlawful, with the employer ordered to reinstate the employee, pay the severance pay that he no longer earned and pay compensation for material and moral damages.
Also read:
