The Court highlights that the alleged limitations did not meet the legal criteria to justify the termination of the contract.

Appeal No. 1462/2025 is resolved against sentence number 531/2024 issued by the Social Court No. 1 of Lugo (general dismissal/dismissal procedure 646/2024).

The worker provided services in a company whose corporate purpose is the hiring of people with disabilities. He had a full-time indefinite contract, performing duties as a printing press operator in the workshop. Their functions included the management and adjustment of presses and printing machines, the preparation of plates and cylinders, ink regulation... and control of printed products.

On June 16, 2022,suffered an AT from which she was discharged on January 9, 2023,deriving on 28.2.2023 in a low IT (common disease) due to "lateral right elbow epicondylitis".

On May 10, 2024,The INSS issued a medical discharge due to improvement with effect from May 14, 2024, considering himself fit to return to his job. The worker challenged this resolution, and in a ruling issued on October 31, 2024, the medical discharge was confirmed, indicating that the pathology was mild, without loss of strength and with complete mobility, considering the worker capable of performing his usual duties.

Prior to his reinstatement,The company subjected the worker to a medical examination, after which on July 8, 2024 the prevention service certified that it was suitable with limitations. However, the company requested a new certificate of unfitness, alleging that the worker's limitations were incompatible with the tasks of the position.

On July 22, 2024, the company notified the worker of the objective dismissal letter, based on arts. 52.a ​​and 53 of the Workers' Statute, alleging sudden ineptitude for the performance of their position. The letter indicated that the possibility of relocation to other positions in the workshop had been considered, but that it was not viable because all the other positions presented relevant limitations that prevented the worker from performing them adequately, such as repetitive movements, handling of loads and forced postures. The worker was given the corresponding compensation for objective dismissal, in the amount of 4,695.64 euros.

The lower court ruling upheld the worker's claim, declaring the dismissal null and void. and condemning the company to immediately reinstate the worker under the same conditions prior to dismissal. In addition, the company was sentenced to pay the salaries not received until the date of the ruling and to pay 7,501 euros in moral damages derived from the violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination.

The company filed an appeal and requested a review of the proven facts and alleged violation of legal norms., maintaining that the worker's dismissal could not be classified as void. The company defended that the termination of the contract was due solely to the worker's sudden physical limitations, which prevented him from performing the essential tasks of his position as a workshop operator. Furthermore, he argued that there was no discrimination due to disability, given that the worker had been medically discharged by the INSS and the company, dedicated to the labor integration of people with disabilities.

Regarding the evaluation of the test,The Court confirmed the proven facts of the lower court ruling. He pointed out that the review requested by the company was not relevant to the resolution of the case and that the evaluation of documents, medical reports and testimonial evidence carried out by the trial judge was in accordance with the law. In particular, it was highlighted that the worker's epicondylitis was mild, without significant limitations for the performance of his duties, and that the certificates of unfitness issued at the company's request lacked sufficient objective basis, since the doctor who issued them had not examined the worker or provided specific data on his ability to handle loads or repetitive movements.

Regarding the allegation of discrimination due to disability, the Court noted that the hiring of people with disabilities by the company does not exclude the possibility of discrimination against a specific disability.. In this case, the dismissal based on a certificate of unfitness issued at the company's request generated an indication of discrimination, which was not refuted by the defendant's evidentiary activity. Therefore, the ruling concluded that the dismissal was not justified and was due to discriminatory reasons related to the worker's health, confirming the nullity of the dismissal and the admissibility of reinstatement.

According to the doctrine of the TSJ, the ineptitude of the worker, whatever its cause (physical, mental or professional), in order for it to be a cause for termination, requires the concurrence of several requirements:

• The lack of aptitude must be true, not simulated, permanent and not merely circumstantial.
• It must refer to the entire work entrusted and affect the tasks of the contracted position.
• The ineptitude must be of sufficient magnitude, that is, an aptitude below the normal average, and affect all or the main part of the tasks entrusted.
• The cause must be beyond the worker's control, not derived from a voluntary attitude or intentional non-compliance.
• It must be known by the company or occurred during the employment relationship, not before the provision of services.
• It is not applicable if the applicable collective agreement provides for relocation to another position adapted to the worker's situation.

In the specific case,The Chamber concluded that there was no real and permanent supervening ineptitude that justified the termination of the contract., given the observed improvement in epicondylitis and the medical reports that supported the worker's ability to perform the tasks of his position.