When Illness Becomes Relevant in the Analysis of a Dismissal
The management of medical leave has become an increasingly sensitive issue for companies. Following the entry into force of Law 15/2022 on equal treatment and non-discrimination, illness and health condition are expressly recognised as potential grounds of discrimination.
This does not mean that every dismissal occurring during medical leave, or shortly after it, will automatically be declared null and void.
However, it does require companies to exercise particular caution when a dismissal decision is adopted in circumstances closely connected with a period of temporary incapacity.
Judgment No. 320/2026 of the High Court of Justice of Asturias, dated 24 February 2026, addresses precisely this issue.
The case concerns an employee who was dismissed on disciplinary grounds for an alleged reduction in performance shortly after returning from a prolonged period of temporary incapacity.
The High Court confirms the nullity of the dismissal. The main reason was that there were sufficient indications of discrimination based on illness, and the company failed to provide an objective, reasonable and sufficiently proven justification capable of excluding a discriminatory motive.
Background of the Case
The employee worked for Adober Electricidad, S.L. under an indefinite full-time employment contract.
His recognised seniority dated back to 1 February 2022. He held the professional category of Official 3rd Class and worked at the company’s Gijón workplace.
His gross daily salary was €64.73, including the proportional allocation of extraordinary payments.
The employee remained on temporary incapacity leave from 11 April 2022 until 26 February 2024.
After receiving medical discharge and taking his accrued holidays, he effectively returned to work on 1 April 2024.
Only two and a half months later, on 14 June 2024, the company delivered a disciplinary dismissal letter with immediate effect.
What the Dismissal Letter Stated
The dismissal letter alleged a reduction in performance.
According to the company, the employee’s performance had decreased over a certain period of time.
The company also stated that the time required by the employee to complete production tasks had increased compared with his colleagues, generating delays and higher departmental costs.
The company added that this issue had been verbally communicated to him on several occasions, without any improvement on his part.
Finally, the company linked the dismissal decision to an unjustified reduction in performance as established under the applicable collective agreement for the metal industry in the Principality of Asturias.
However, the dismissal letter did not include objective data.
It did not identify specific tasks, periods analysed, targets, comparisons, performance ratios, measurements or objective performance parameters.
This lack of detail became a decisive factor in the judgment.
Decision of the Labour Court
Labour Court No. 4 of Gijón upheld the employee’s claim.
It declared the dismissal communicated on 14 June 2024 null and void and ordered the company to reinstate the employee under the same conditions, together with the payment of back pay.
Furthermore, it awarded an additional compensation of €7,501 for the violation of fundamental rights, specifically due to discrimination linked to illness or health condition.
The company appealed before the High Court of Justice of Asturias.
The Company’s Arguments on Appeal
The company raised several grounds of appeal.
Firstly, it requested that the first-instance judgment be declared null and void.
It argued that the Court had failed to take into account evidence provided by the company, particularly witness evidence and a recording of a telephone conversation.
According to the company, these pieces of evidence should have been included in the established facts section of the judgment.
Secondly, the company denied that there had been discrimination based on illness.
It argued that there was no evidence proving that the dismissal had a discriminatory purpose and maintained that the decision was based on a genuine reduction in performance.
Finally, the company challenged the €7,501 compensation awarded for the violation of fundamental rights.
It argued that compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights was not automatic and that, in any event, the amount awarded was disproportionate.
The High Court Rejects the Request to Annul the Judgment
The High Court of Justice of Asturias begins by rejecting the first ground of appeal.
The Court recalls that the statement of proven facts in a judgment does not need to include a complete transcription of all evidence examined during the proceedings.
Nor must it reproduce the content of every witness statement, recording or document submitted.
Instead, it must include the relevant facts that the court considers proven after assessing the evidence as a whole.
In this case, the first-instance judgment included the employee’s working conditions, the content of the dismissal letter and the relevant circumstances necessary to assess whether the dismissal was null and void.
Furthermore, it explained that the evidence provided by the company was insufficient to prove the alleged reduction in performance.
Therefore, the High Court considers that the judgment was sufficiently reasoned and that there was no reason to return the proceedings to an earlier stage.
Law 15/2022 and Illness as a Ground of Discrimination
The central issue in the judgment concerns the application of Law 15/2022.
The High Court recalls that this legislation introduced a significant change in the legal treatment of illness within employment law.
Illness and health condition are now expressly included among the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Before this law, illness only received enhanced anti-discrimination protection in certain circumstances, particularly where it could be linked to disability.
Following Law 15/2022, illness constitutes an autonomous ground of protection against discrimination.
However, the Court introduces an essential clarification: not every dismissal of an employee who is ill or on temporary incapacity leave is automatically null and void.
For a dismissal to be declared null, the illness must have been a determining factor behind the employer’s decision.
In other words, there must be a connection between the employee’s health condition and the termination of employment.
The Court explains that there is no automatic nullity rule.
If the legislator had intended every dismissal occurring during sick leave or shortly after it to be automatically null and void, it would have expressly amended Articles 53.4 and 55.5 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute, as well as Articles 108.2 and 122.2 of the Labour Procedure Act (LRJS).
How the Burden of Proof Works
The judgment recalls the procedural rules applicable in cases involving fundamental rights.
The employee does not have to fully prove the employer’s discriminatory intention.
Instead, the employee must provide sufficient evidence creating a reasonable indication that the dismissal may be connected to the illness or health condition.
Once such indications are established, the burden of proof shifts to the company.
At that point, the employer must provide an objective, reasonable and sufficiently proven justification for the decision adopted.
The company must demonstrate that the dismissal was based on a genuine reason unrelated to the employee’s health condition.
This rule derives from Articles 96.1 and 181.2 of the Labour Procedure Act (LRJS), as well as Article 30 of Law 15/2022.
The Indication Present in This Case
In this case, the main indication was the timing of events.
The employee had remained on temporary incapacity leave from 11 April 2022 until 26 February 2024.
After receiving medical discharge and taking his holidays, he returned to work on 1 April 2024.
The dismissal took place on 14 June 2024.
In other words, the dismissal occurred only around two months after the employee’s effective return to work.
For the High Court of Justice of Asturias, this close temporal connection between a prolonged medical leave and the dismissal created sufficient indications of possible discrimination.
Therefore, it was the company’s responsibility to prove that the dismissal was based on genuine reasons unrelated to the employee’s illness.
Why the Company Failed to Meet the Burden of Proof
The company failed to provide sufficient objective justification.
The main problem was the content of the dismissal letter.
The communication was generic.
It alleged a reduction in performance but did not specify what level of performance was expected, what the employee’s actual performance was, or what comparison had been made with other employees.
It also failed to identify the employee’s performance before the temporary incapacity period.
The company did not provide data, percentages, measurements, specific tasks, comparison periods or verifiable results.
The Evidence Did Not Prove the Alleged Reduction in Performance
Furthermore, the evidence provided during the proceedings was not sufficient to justify the alleged reduction in performance.
For this reason, the High Court concluded that the company had not provided an objective and reasonable explanation capable of excluding a discriminatory motive.
The dismissal therefore remained connected to a possible discriminatory reason, as the company had not demonstrated that the decision would have been adopted independently of the employee’s health condition.
Generic Dismissal Letters as a Legal Risk Factor
One of the most important lessons from this judgment is the risk associated with using generic dismissal letters.
When a company dismisses an employee due to reduced performance, it is not enough to simply state that the employee takes longer than colleagues or causes delays.
The company must provide specific details.
It must explain the comparison criteria used, identify the expected objectives, define the period analysed, compare previous and current performance and provide objective data supporting the alleged reduction.
This requirement becomes even more important when there is a possible discrimination context.
If an employee has recently returned from prolonged sick leave, an unclear or vague dismissal letter may not only result in an unfair dismissal.
It may also reinforce the argument that the dismissal was discriminatory and therefore null and void.
The Reduction in Performance Must Be Proven
A voluntary and continuous reduction in performance may justify a disciplinary dismissal in certain circumstances.
However, it must be properly proven.
The company must demonstrate that there was an objectively required level of performance, that the employee was aware of those standards and that their performance was lower in a voluntary and culpable manner.
The company must also prove that the comparison is based on objective and homogeneous criteria.
In this case, the company failed to demonstrate these elements.
The Court does not deny that a genuine reduction in performance may justify a disciplinary dismissal.
However, it concludes that, in this specific case, the company neither proved the alleged cause nor sufficiently explained it in the dismissal letter.
The Nullity of the Dismissal
The High Court confirms that the dismissal was null and void.
Illness or health condition is a protected ground under Law 15/2022.
Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence suggesting a possible discriminatory motive due to the close timing between the employee’s return after temporary incapacity and the dismissal.
Once this indication existed, the company was required to prove that the dismissal was based on a reason unrelated to the employee’s health condition.
Since it failed to do so, the termination decision was considered discriminatory and therefore null and void.
The consequences were the employee’s reinstatement, payment of back pay and recognition of additional compensation for moral damages.
Compensation for Moral Damages
The company also challenged the €7,501 compensation awarded by the Labour Court.
The High Court rejected the company’s argument.
The Court recalls that, when a violation of a fundamental right is declared, the judgment must include appropriate compensation.
Moral damages are closely linked to the infringement of the fundamental right itself. Therefore, the employee does not always need to provide detailed and exact evidence of the psychological harm suffered.
Case law allows courts to determine the amount of compensation on a discretionary basis, taking into account the circumstances of the case.
Courts may also use the sanctions established under the Spanish Law on Social Offences and Penalties (LISOS) as an indicative reference.
In this case, the High Court considers the €7,501 compensation appropriate.
This amount corresponds to the minimum penalty established for very serious offences under the LISOS, used as an interpretative reference.
Final Decision of the High Court of Justice of Asturias
The High Court of Justice of Asturias dismissed the company’s appeal.
It fully confirmed the judgment issued by Labour Court No. 4 of Gijón.
Therefore, it upheld:
- The nullity of the dismissal.
- The obligation to reinstate the employee.
- The payment of back pay.
- The compensation of €7,501 for violation of the right to non-discrimination.
Furthermore, the Court ordered the company to pay the procedural costs of the appeal, including the legal fees of the opposing party’s lawyer, amounting to €600 plus VAT.
The Key Legal Principle of the Judgment
The judgment establishes a clear principle: dismissing an employee shortly after a prolonged medical leave requires particularly strong justification.
Law 15/2022 does not make every dismissal connected in time with temporary incapacity automatically null and void.
However, when there are indications of discrimination based on illness, the company must prove that the dismissal is based on a genuine, objective reason completely unrelated to the employee’s health condition.
A generic dismissal letter alleging poor performance is not sufficient.
If the company does not provide specific evidence and does not properly prove the alleged reduction in performance, the dismissal may be declared null and void, resulting in reinstatement, back pay and additional compensation for moral damages.
Practical Impact for Companies
This judgment is particularly relevant for companies managing employee returns after prolonged medical leave.
A decision to dismiss an employee shortly after their return must be supported by strong evidence.
It is not enough to make generic statements regarding performance issues.
The company should have objective data, consistent comparisons, documented warnings and a detailed dismissal letter.
Furthermore, it must be able to demonstrate that the decision is unrelated to the employee’s illness or health condition.
Companies should also review how employee reintegration processes are managed.
In many cases, it may be advisable to document workplace adaptation measures, internal follow-up, task evaluations and any genuine performance-related incidents.
Impact for Human Resources Departments
For Human Resources departments, the judgment provides a clear warning.
Illness can no longer be treated as a secondary factor when assessing dismissal risks.
Health condition is a legally protected ground against discrimination.
Therefore, before adopting a dismissal decision, HR departments should assess whether there has been:
- Recent medical leave.
- A recent return to work.
- Any circumstance that could create indications of discrimination.
Where such indications exist, the company must prepare a particularly robust justification.
The dismissal letter must be specific, and supporting evidence must exist before the dismissal is communicated.
Good Business Practices
Companies should review their dismissal protocols following medical leave periods.
First, generic dismissal letters should be avoided.
The reason for dismissal must be described through specific facts.
Second, where poor performance is alleged, the company should include objective parameters, such as:
- Assigned tasks.
- Average completion times.
- Performance comparisons.
- Targets.
- Previous warnings.
- Performance evolution.
Third, documentary evidence should be preserved.
Verbal communications alone are rarely sufficient unless supported by objective evidence.
Fourth, the company must clearly separate the dismissal reason from the employee’s health condition.
The company should be able to demonstrate that the decision would have been taken even if the employee had not experienced medical leave.
Finally, alternatives should be considered before dismissal, particularly when an employee has recently returned from a prolonged absence.
Timing Matters, but Evidence Decides
Judgment No. 320/2026 of the High Court of Justice of Asturias confirms that dismissing an employee shortly after prolonged temporary incapacity may be considered null and void if there are indications of discrimination based on illness and the company cannot prove an objective reason unrelated to health condition.
In the case analysed, the dismissal letter alleging reduced performance was excessively generic.
It did not specify objectives, comparisons or productivity data.
The alleged disciplinary cause was also not sufficiently proven.
Therefore, the Court confirmed:
- The nullity of the dismissal.
- The employee’s reinstatement.
- Payment of back pay.
- Additional compensation of €7,501.
For companies, the lesson is clear: following Law 15/2022, dismissals close to medical leave periods require rigorous justification.
Illness does not prevent dismissal, but it requires the company to prove that the reason is genuine, objective and entirely unrelated to the employee’s health condition.
At Suárez de Vivero, we advise companies, international groups and Human Resources departments on disciplinary dismissals, medical leave management, employee reintegration, equal treatment, occupational risk prevention, fundamental rights and legal defence in employment proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions About Dismissal After Medical Leave and Law 15/2022
Is every dismissal after medical leave automatically null and void?
No.
Nullity is not automatic. However, if there are indications that the dismissal is related to illness or health condition, the company must prove an objective reason unrelated to that circumstance.
What changed with Law 15/2022?
Law 15/2022 expressly recognises illness and health condition as protected grounds against discrimination.
This strengthens protection for employees experiencing medical leave or health-related conditions.
Is the proximity between medical discharge and dismissal sufficient?
It may be an important indication, especially where the medical leave was prolonged and dismissal occurs shortly after returning to work.
However, the final assessment depends on all circumstances of the case.
What must the company prove?
The company must provide an objective, reasonable and sufficiently proven justification.
If poor performance is alleged, it must provide specific data, comparisons, objectives and evidence of performance evolution.
Can an employee be dismissed for poor performance after medical leave?
Yes. However, the reason must be properly documented and unrelated to the employee’s illness. A generic dismissal letter may be insufficient and increase the risk of nullity.
What are the consequences of a null dismissal?
The company must reinstate the employee, pay back wages and, where fundamental rights have been violated, provide additional compensation for moral damages.
Is compensation for moral damages automatic?
When a violation of fundamental rights is declared, appropriate compensation must be provided.
The amount may be determined by the court, using criteria such as the sanctions established under the LISOS as an indicative reference.
How can companies reduce risks?
Companies should properly document the dismissal reason, avoid generic dismissal letters, analyse the timing of medical leave, provide objective justification and obtain legal advice before communicating the dismissal.