A fresh ruling from the Court of Cassation addresses a highly topical and socially relevant topic: the relationship between private life of the worker, crimes e dismissal for just cause. In particular, the judges in Piazza Cavour established in which practical cases non-work-related conduct, or conduct that occurred outside the office and the performance of duties, can affect the fiduciary bond enough to justify expulsion.
Let’s see together, in summary, the sentence no. 32952/2025 of the Supreme Court, because it offers valid indications for the generality of employment relationships.
Fired after conviction for stalking and injuries: the case
The employee involved was an ecological operator, dismissed for just cause a few years ago by the employing company.
The reason was in condemnation definitive to a sentence of 2 years, 6 months and 6 days in prison for the crimes of stalking, aggravated personal injury and damage. The main victim of these gestures was the ex-spouse.
The maximum disciplinary sanction gave rise to a second trial before the labor judge. In fact, the public service employee challenged the dismissal.
In a nutshell, the appellate judiciary reversed the first instance sentence and ordered the worker’s reinstatement.
The dismissal was considered illegitimate and, as required by law in these cases, the giving company was sentenced to compensation for damagequantified as 12 months of the final overall de facto salary.
According to the appellate judges, the crimes could not have an impact on a disciplinary level because:
- they were carried out outside the workplace;
- they had no connection with the tasks performed;
- they had not caused direct damage to the company’s image or reputation;
- they concerned only the personal and family sphere of the employee.
Not only that. The territorial court held that the relevant collective agreement allowed expulsion for criminal convictions only with penalties not less than three yearsthreshold not reached in this case.
The same Ccnl environmental services provided for expulsion for serious acts detrimental to personal dignitybut the contractual clause was considered applicable only to actions carried out in the performance of duties and during working hours.
The employer’s appeal
The company operating in environmental services had appealed against the appeal ruling. He asked the Supreme Court to ascertain some technical-legal errorsaccording to him carried out by the territorial court.
In particular, the judges did not correctly apply the articles of the Civil Code regarding the obligations of fidelity, loyalty, good faith e relationship of trust.
According to the employer, the error was even more serious considering the severity and plurality of the errors violent conductimplemented by an employee with tasks in contact with users.
Furthermore, the territorial judge would have erred in interpreting the Ccnl environmental servicesbecause its text would not contain, in terms of disciplinary consequences for violent acts, any textual reference to the workplace.
According to the Court of Cassation, the dismissal is correct: the sentence
With the sentence no. 32952/2025 the Court of Cassation ruled in favor of the company operating in environmental services.
In fact, it accepted the aforementioned grounds of appeal, annulling the appeal sentence and referring the case to the court of appeal, which, in a different composition, will have to issue a new decision, adhering to the principles of law highlighted by the Cassation and evaluating the applicable protection and the costs of the proceedings.
In summary, even conduct outside of work can create significant disciplinary problems, because:
The worker is required not only to provide the requested service but also, as an additional obligation, not to engage in conduct, outside the workplace, that could harm the moral and material interests of the employer or compromise the fiduciary relationship with the same; such conduct, if characterized by serious characteristics, can also lead to the imposition of the expulsion sanction (Cass. no. 267 of 2024; no. 28368 of 2021; no. 16268 of 2015).
The employee must, therefore, be careful about how he behaves too outside the office. If in private life he commits serious actions with criminal consequences, he could pay by losing his job.
Dismissal for just cause valid for convictions
Not only that. There just cause it is a concept defined first and foremost by lawnot by the collective agreement.
So:
- the hypotheses of dismissal foreseen in the collective agreements have only value illustrative e non-binding;
- the judge is free to confirm the expulsion for violation of civil principles on the employment relationship.
For the Court of Cassation, the appeal judge was wrong to limit the scope of the Ccnl rule on dismissal for just cause.
In fact, the contract does not limit the consequences only to serious acts that are harmful to personal dignity, committed in the workplace. His text, in reality, does not expressly say so.
Indeed, the Ccnl aiming at the full protection of the dignity of the person, a value of constitutional importance, the dismissal was revealed as a fair and natural consequence of violent, habitual and intimidating gestures.
And it was in particular, writes the Court:
especially where the worker’s duties involve constant contact with the public and require rigorous respect towards users and the ability to self-control in meeting their needs.
What changes for workers at risk of dismissal
The sentence no. 32952/2025 of the Supreme Court has to do with delicate issues such as stalking, which we have recently already seen in terms of occupational stalking.
But, above all, it confirms a fundamental principle of labor law: the employee’s private life is not always extraneous to the relationship with the company.
If behavior at home, outdoors, in spaces dedicated to recreational activities and in any other place is serious, undermines fundamental values such as the dignity of the person and affects the reliability of the worker with respect to the tasks performed, it can justify immediate dismissal.
Direct connection to the workplace is not necessary, and we have already seen this in another recent case with another worker who was a stalker in his private life.
Certainly, that of the Court of Cassation is an orientation that strengthens the protection of constitutional values and imposes a concrete and not “formalistic” evaluation of the employment relationship.
What matters is not so much the textual data of a certain rule, but the concrete effects of behavior and the judgment according to social conscience.
