The case analysed in the judgment.
The judgment upholds the decision of the Court of First Instance, which had ruled that the dismissal of an employee who had been ill for just a few days was unfair. The worker claimed the dismissal was void, arguing that it constituted discrimination on the grounds of his illness. It is established as a matter of fact that, a few days prior to the dismissal, the worker had been prescribed 72 hours’ rest by the health centre and that, three months prior to his dismissal, he had undergone a period of temporary incapacity lasting 60 days.
The company’s stance. Open acknowledgement of unfair dismissal.
The established facts of the judgment show that, prior to the dismissal, the company attempted to reach an agreement with the employee. Once the dismissal had taken place, the company put forward a settlement proposal aimed at acknowledging the unfairness of the dismissal, and ultimately, the company acknowledged the unfairness of the dismissal during the court proceedings. In the opinion of the employment lawyers at Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., these are highly relevant facts.
Dismissal of the claim for nullity at first instance.
The Employment Court partially upheld the employee’s claim, declaring the dismissal unfair, but dismissed the claim for nullity.
Judgment upheld by the High Court of Justice of Madrid following a brief legal analysis.
The Chamber conducts a comprehensive and detailed reading of Article 55.5 of the Workers’ Statute, Articles 2 and 9 of Law 15/2022, and Council Directive 2000/78 on equal treatment in employment. Relevant case law on the matter is also analysed, including Constitutional Court Judgment No. 62/2008 of 26 May. In this ruling, the High Court stated that what characterises the prohibition of discrimination, as opposed to the general principle of equality, is the particularly odious nature of the criterion of differentiation used, which becomes an element of segregation. This is well-established doctrine, as has already been explained in previous articles by the team of lawyers in the employment department of Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P.
The High Court of Justice links the aforementioned constitutional doctrine with that established by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 27 January 2009, Appeal No. 602/2008, according to which, where there is no legal ground for the termination of the employment contract and the actual cause is not among those classified as grounds for the nullity of the dismissal, the applicable classification is that of unfair dismissal, and not nullity.
Conclusion. Need to provide prima facie evidence of the causal link between sick leave and dismissal.
The Labour Chamber categorically states that a dismissal based on the worker’s illness will always result in the nullity of the decision unless the rationality of the decision is proven. It confirms that, in such cases, it is for the courts to examine whether the company has provided relevant counter-evidence capable of rebutting the existing indications of a dismissal motivated by illness or health status.
The judgment, drawing once again on the Constitutional Court, recalls that reasonable evidence that a fundamental right has been infringed does not consist merely in establishing that the right was exercised at an earlier point in time, but rather requires proof—by way of circumstantial evidence—of a causal link between such exercise and the decision or act deemed to infringe the right. Constitutional Court Ruling 140/2014 handed down in Appeal 7535/2006 on 11 September 2014.
In this regard, the existence of objective evidence justifying the employer’s decision to terminate the contract will be assessed; although such evidence may not be sufficient to justify the validity of the dismissal, it could be sufficient to avoid a ruling of nullity.
At Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., as expert employment lawyers with extensive experience in providing comprehensive legal advice, we consider that this judgment must be taken into account when making decisions regarding dismissal or the termination of an employment contract that may affect employees on temporary sick leave or with a specific medical condition, and we recommend expert legal advice on the matter given the significance of the legal repercussions – including the potential nullity – of dismissal decisions. Labour Law Department of Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding the article
- Is a dismissal automatically void if the employee is on sick leave? No. According to recent case law from the Madrid High Court of Justice (Judgment of 14 November 2025), nullity is not automatic. For a dismissal to be declared null and void, it must be demonstrated that the actual cause of the termination was discrimination on the grounds of illness. The court is required to assess the counter-arguments put forward by the company and decide whether there is a causal link between the sick leave and the dismissal, or whether the company can provide objective reasons to explain or justify the dismissal. In such cases, the dismissal could be unfair rather than null and void.
- What is the difference between a null and void dismissal and an unfair dismissal in the case of illness? The difference lies in the legal consequences. A null and void dismissal obliges the company to reinstate the employee immediately and to pay back pay. Unfair dismissal, as a general rule, has the legal effect that the company may choose between two possible options: the reinstatement of the employee together with the payment of back pay, or the confirmation of the termination of the employment relationship together with the payment to the employee of the statutory severance pay under Article 56 of the Workers’ Statute.
- What must the judge at first instance consider in these cases? The court must examine the evidence presented to determine whether there is a causal link between the employee’s state of health and the company’s decision to dismiss them. It is not sufficient merely to be on sick leave at the time of dismissal; it is necessary to demonstrate that the illness was the determining and decisive factor that led to the termination of the contract, according to the doctrine of the Constitutional Court. Only then could the dismissal be declared null and void.
- Can a company avoid the dismissal being declared null and void if it admits that the dismissal is unfair? In light of the judgment analysed, this would indeed be possible. In fact, that is what has happened in the present case. As we have analysed at Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P. in the judgment in question, if the company provides objective evidence justifying its decision (even if it is not sufficient to establish full validity), the dismissal could be declared unfair rather than void, even if the company has acknowledged the unfairness of the dismissal from the outset.