Discrimination on Grounds of Illness: A New Approach to Quantifying Moral Damages

The Catalonia High Court opens the door to a new method for assessing moral damages arising from health-related discrimination

Protection against discrimination on grounds of illness or health condition has become increasingly relevant in employment relationships. Law 15/2022 expressly strengthened this protection by including illness and health condition among the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited.

The issue, however, does not end with a finding that an employer’s decision is discriminatory. Where fundamental rights have been infringed, the question also arises as to how the resulting harm should be remedied and, in particular, which criteria should be used to quantify moral damages.

Until now, Spanish employment case law has accepted the use of the amounts established in the Law on Social Offences and Sanctions (LISOS) as an indicative reference when determining compensation for moral damages arising from violations of fundamental rights. This is not a mandatory scale, but rather a reference that courts have used to ensure that compensation is not merely symbolic.

A recent judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia introduces an interesting development in this debate. In its judgment of 27 April 2026, the Court considered it more appropriate, as an indicative criterion, to refer to the sanctioning framework contained in Law 15/2022 itself, namely the legislation underpinning the discrimination at issue.

The result in the specific case was an award of €10,001 in moral damages.

The judgment does not, by itself, establish a mandatory compensation scale for all cases of discrimination on grounds of health. Its relevance lies in the fact that it provides a specific methodology for assessing moral damages and raises the possibility that this approach may become more significant in future proceedings.

Illness as a Ground of Discrimination in Employment Relationships

Law 15/2022 represented a significant development by expressly including illness or health condition among the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

This is particularly relevant to employer decisions concerning recruitment, continued employment or termination.

The existence of sick leave does not automatically make every employer decision discriminatory. The legal question is whether illness or health condition has been used as a factor giving rise to discriminatory treatment.

The judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia also highlights that the protection does not necessarily depend on the duration of the temporary incapacity. Illness may constitute a discriminatory factor when it is used as a basis for segregation or stigmatisation, regardless of the circumstances that may be relevant when assessing an individual’s ability to perform their role.

For companies, this distinction is essential. Managing an employee’s absence for health reasons and making decisions during a period of temporary incapacity require careful consideration of the circumstances involved.

The Case Considered by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia

The case decided by the Court is particularly relevant because two circumstances ultimately proved decisive.

The employee had initially been hired under a fixed-term contract based on production-related circumstances for a period of three months. The stated reason was simply a generic reference to an “accumulation of work”.

The working hours were subsequently increased and the contract was extended for a further nine months, meaning that the employment relationship continued for approximately one year.

On 11 July 2024, the employee began a period of temporary incapacity due to common illness. Shortly afterwards, on 6 August, the company informed her that the contract would end on 12 September, coinciding with the date formally established as the end of the employment relationship.

The difficulty for the company was that the temporary nature of the contract had already been considered fraudulent. The stated reason for the fixed-term arrangement had not been sufficiently established, and the generic reference to an “accumulation of work” was not enough to justify the temporary contract.

The court of first instance had considered the termination unfair. The High Court of Justice of Catalonia went further and declared the termination null and void on the grounds of discrimination related to the employee’s health condition.

When a Fraudulent Fixed-Term Contract Cannot Dispel the Indication of Discrimination

One of the most relevant aspects of the judgment concerns the relationship between fraudulent fixed-term employment and the indication of discrimination.

The company argued that the employment relationship had simply ended because the agreed termination date had been reached.

However, the Court did not consider this explanation sufficient.

The employment relationship had continued for approximately one year through an increase in working hours and a subsequent extension. Furthermore, the temporary nature of the contract had been based on a generic reason that had not been adequately established.

In these circumstances, the Court considered that the termination date arising from a fraudulent fixed-term arrangement could not be relied upon to rebut the indication of discrimination.

The result was particularly significant: the company failed to establish a sufficient causal separation between the employee’s temporary incapacity and the decision to terminate the relationship.

The termination was therefore declared null and void, resulting in the employee’s reinstatement and payment of the wages lost until reinstatement.

The Second Issue: How Should Moral Damages Be Quantified?

Once the infringement of the fundamental right had been established, the Court had to determine the appropriate compensation.

The employee had claimed €15,000 in moral damages.

This is where the judgment becomes particularly relevant from a legal perspective.

The Court referred to the case law of the Spanish Supreme Court, which has accepted the use of the LISOS sanctioning scale as an indicative reference when assessing compensation for violations of fundamental rights. This reference is not automatic and does not amount to directly applying an administrative sanction in employment proceedings.

The Court then adopted a different approach.

Because the discrimination in question was specifically based on Law 15/2022, the Court considered it more appropriate to use the sanctioning framework established by that same legislation as an indicative reference.

Law 15/2022 as an Indicative Reference for Moral Damages

The Court referred to Articles 47.3 and 48.1(b) of Law 15/2022.

These provisions establish the relevant sanctioning framework for serious discriminatory conduct under the legislation. The applicable range for serious infringements is between €10,001 and €40,000, with the specific amount depending on the circumstances of the case.

The Court considered this range appropriate, as an indicative reference, for fulfilling the two functions that compensation for a fundamental rights infringement should perform: repairing the moral harm caused and contributing to the prevention of future discriminatory conduct.

This distinction is important.

The Court did not turn employment compensation into an administrative sanction, nor did it establish that every case of discrimination on grounds of illness must automatically result in compensation of €10,001.

Instead, it used the sanctioning framework of Law 15/2022 as a reference for determining the amount of compensation.

Why €10,001 in This Case?

The Court considered the specific circumstances before determining the amount.

It found no additional damages beyond the moral harm, no recurrence by the employer and no particularly significant social impact. Nor were there other circumstances that would justify increasing the compensation within the applicable range.

For this reason, the Court awarded compensation at the minimum level of the serious infringement: €10,001.

The judgment also included the declaration that the termination was null and void, reinstatement of the employee and payment of the wages lost until reinstatement.

Does This Establish a New Minimum Amount of Compensation?

This is where particular caution is required.

The judgment does not establish that every case of discrimination on grounds of illness must necessarily result in compensation of at least €10,001.

What the High Court of Justice of Catalonia has done is use the sanctioning framework of Law 15/2022 as an indicative criterion for quantifying moral damages in the specific circumstances before it.

The judgment itself treats this approach as indicative.

The real significance of the decision therefore lies not simply in the €10,001 figure, but in the methodology.

The ruling opens the possibility that, in future cases involving discrimination on grounds of health, courts may refer to the sanctioning range established by Law 15/2022 and determine compensation according to the circumstances of each case.

The Business Relevance of This Approach

For companies, the judgment introduces an important consideration when managing decisions affecting employees with health conditions.

Temporary incapacity does not, in itself, prevent an employer from taking legitimate business decisions. However, where there is an indication of discrimination, the company must be able to demonstrate that its decision is based on genuine and sufficient reasons unrelated to any discriminatory factor.

Fraudulent fixed-term contracts, poorly documented decisions or inconsistent employer actions may make it significantly more difficult to discharge this burden.

Prevention therefore begins before the employer decision is made.

Proper employment structures, adequate documentation of the reasons behind decisions and legal review of particularly sensitive situations may become decisive if the company’s conduct is subsequently challenged as an infringement of fundamental rights.

A New Dimension to the Risk of Health-Related Discrimination

Legislative and judicial developments are strengthening protection against discrimination on grounds of illness.

Law 15/2022 had already expressly expanded protection by including illness and health condition as grounds of discrimination. Certain recent judicial decisions are now exploring more specific approaches to determining the financial compensation associated with such infringements.

The High Court of Justice of Catalonia judgment of 27 April 2026 is particularly relevant in this context.

Not because it creates a binding compensation scale, but because it establishes a direct connection between the legislation prohibiting discrimination and the sanctioning framework contained in that same legislation as a reference for assessing moral damages.

There is, however, an important qualification: the judgment was not final when issued and was subject to an appeal for cassation to the Spanish Supreme Court for the harmonisation of case law.

It will therefore be important to monitor whether this approach becomes established in Catalonia and, particularly, whether it is subsequently confirmed or modified by the Supreme Court.

Preventing Health-Related Discrimination as a Business Responsibility

Managing situations involving employee health increasingly requires careful legal analysis.

For companies, the risk does not end with a declaration that a decision is null and void. Reinstatement and back pay may be accompanied by moral damages, the quantification of which may begin to follow increasingly defined criteria.

The recent judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia illustrates how employment law is moving beyond the mere identification of an infringement towards a more developed approach to its financial remedy.

In this context, employer decisions affecting employees on temporary incapacity should be analysed not only by reference to the formal reason for the decision, but also considering the circumstances in which it is made and the company’s ability to demonstrate that its actions are unrelated to any discriminatory factor.

At Suárez de Vivero, we advise national and international companies on dismissals, employment discrimination, fundamental rights, employment compliance and the preventive management of employment risks.

Frequently Asked Questions About Health-Related Discrimination and Moral Damages