The present dispute originates between a journalist and the media for which he worked. The company proceeded to dismiss the worker alleging unjustified absences from his job. The worker did not notify the company of the reason for the absences.

The worker has suffered from agoraphobia and an unspecified personality disorder for years, supported by different reports from the Madrid Health Service.

Despite having been warned for this, he repeated this behavior and still did not go to work, so the company imposed a disciplinary dismissal on him, after the worker did not come to work for three days and did not respond to the company's calls.  

The worker filed a complaint with the Social Court No. 8 of Madrid, requesting that it be recognized that said dismissal was unfair. The court ruled that the worker's claims were rejected.  

This resolution was appealed by the worker, the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid issued a ruling that partially upheld the appeal filed and consequently revoked the contested ruling, declaring the inadmissibility of the disciplinary dismissal filed by the company.

On the part of the company, an appeal was formalized against the sentence handed down by the TSJ of Madrid. The Social Chamber agreed to open the inadmissibility procedure due to lack of contradiction.

The question raised in the appeal for unification of doctrine that the company filed against the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, consists of determining whether unjustified absences from work, suffering from an agoraphobia disorder, limit or nullify the volitional capacity of the dismissed worker.

Failed: disallow the appeal, through an order of inadmissibility against the appeal presented by the defendant company.