Rehabilitation obligations and the burden of proof in dismissals for subsequent incapacity

1. The invalidity of dismissal for incapacity in the absence of reasonable adjustments

The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 22 December 2025 (case no. 3965/2024), marks a shift in the interpretation of dismissals linked to an employee’s health. The High Court examines the dismissal of an employee with 25 years’ service at her company who, following a period of temporary incapacity, was declared unfit for work by the occupational health service due to physical after-effects that prevented her from lifting heavy loads, standing for prolonged periods or adopting awkward postures.

The company terminated the contract on the basis of Article 52(a) of the Workers’ Statute, classifying it as a dismissal for supervening incapacity and paying the corresponding statutory compensation.

Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P. and its team of labour law experts have analysed the ruling, and we can conclude that in this case the issue is not whether the employee was ill or not, but rather what the company did once it knew she could no longer perform her usual duties. In this case, the company merely accepted the medical certificate of unfitness and signed the letter of dismissal, without seeking any reasonable accommodation or looking for an alternative role within the workforce.

2. The legal proceedings and the Supreme Court’s confirmation

The legal proceedings in the case began at the Madrid Labour Court No. 2, which ruled the dismissal unfair at first instance. This ruling was subsequently upheld by the Madrid High Court of Justice, whose reasoning has been endorsed by the Supreme Court in dismissing the appeal lodged by the company.

The Supreme Court ruled out the company acting as a passive party in the face of the worker’s lack of aptitude. It is not sufficient to prove that the worker has limitations; rather, it must be demonstrated that these limitations make it impossible for them to continue in the role after the necessary adjustments have been exhausted. The company is obliged to demonstrate that it attempted to adapt the post or redeploy the person to compatible duties, or to demonstrate with figures and data that doing so would entail an unmanageable financial burden. In this case, there is no record of such an effort to adapt.

In this situation, it can be seen that the company merely used the occupational health and safety service’s report to terminate the contract and omitted any prior phase of adaptation or modification of tasks; therefore, the company failed to exercise due diligence beforehand. In the opinion of the team of employment lawyers at Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., this omission alters the decision, transforming what was intended to be a fair dismissal on grounds of incompetence into an unfair dismissal.

3. Final considerations and implications for business management

At Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., as specialists in comprehensive employment advice, we note that this Supreme Court ruling alters the procedure for handling dismissal cases due to supervening incapacity. The ruling clearly establishes that merely obtaining an ‘unfit for work’ report from the occupational health and safety service is insufficient to validate the dismissal.

Companies must take a more proactive approach and substantiate their actions with evidence; they must be able to demonstrate that they have explored all possible avenues for adapting the role or redeploying the employee to duties compatible with their limitations. Only where there is a technical justification that such measures would constitute an excessive burden or are materially impossible would termination of the contract be justified.

This ruling demonstrates that insufficient action by the employer in the pre-dismissal phase (limited to obtaining a medical report) may deprive the company of the possibility of justifying the termination of the contract, thereby increasing the risk of unfair dismissal.

We consider this ruling to be particularly relevant when making decisions regarding the termination of employment contracts linked to situations of incapacity or functional limitations, and we recommend seeking prior legal advice to ensure that adaptation or redeployment measures are properly designed, as well as adequately documenting their feasibility or impossibility, given the significance of the legal consequences associated with such decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Can a company automatically dismiss an employee if it receives an ‘unfit’ report from the occupational health and safety service?

No. According to recent Supreme Court case law, merely obtaining an ‘unfit’ report is insufficient to justify a dismissal. The company cannot simply accept the situation; it must demonstrate that it attempted to make reasonable adjustments or seek alternatives before terminating the contract.

2. What obligations does the company have before proceeding with dismissal on grounds of incapacity?

The company is obliged to:

• Attempt to adapt the job to the employee’s new limitations.
• Explore the possibility of redeploying the employee to duties compatible with their state of health.
• Provide evidence and proof that all avenues for adaptation were exhausted or that these would have entailed an unbearable financial burden.

3. What happens if the company does not attempt to adapt the post or redeploy the employee?

If the company merely signs the letter of dismissal relying solely on the medical report, it is guilty of a failure to exercise due diligence. This vitiates the decision and the dismissal, which was initially intended to be objective, may be classified as unfair by the courts.

4. Why is the occupational health service’s report no longer ‘sufficient’?

Because the occupational health service assesses medical capacity, but not the company’s organisational capacity. The ruling states that the company must carry out a further analysis

5. What must a letter of dismissal on grounds of unsuitability contain to stand a chance of being valid?

It must not only refer to the medical report, but should also detail:

• The steps taken to attempt adaptation.
• The vacancies considered for a possible redeployment.
• The technical or economic reasons why those options were ruled out.

If your company finds itself in this situation or you are an affected employee, you can consult our employment law team.