The worker had been working for the company as an engineer since January 2011, until his dismissal in September 2020, at which time he was 58 years old. Although the company initially notified his dismissal as an objective, the next day it recognized its inadmissibility and offered him the corresponding compensation.

Until 2019, the annual performance evaluations carried out by the company towards the worker had produced results with a B grade, which indicates, according to the internal barometer of the evaluation, a performance that consistently meets or exceeds job expectations and exceeds the average level of the team. However, in 2020, despite receiving the same B grade from his supervisor, Human Resources gave him a C grade, as it had already been decided that the worker would be terminated.

The worker was the oldest employee on the project to which he belonged and was the only one fired. His position was filled by a younger worker who was already within the company, but not on the same project. Furthermore, in June 2019, the company's president proposed attracting young talent and promoting the departure of older employees. In 2020, although workers over 50 years of age made up 11% of the workforce, they accounted for 34% of layoffs.

The worker filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination based on age and the trial court ruled that the dismissal was void, therefore the company had to proceed with reinstatement with processing salaries and compensation of 20,000 euros. The company appealed the decision before the TSJ of Madrid.

The High Court of Justice recalls that both the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibit age discrimination. However, it points out that, in cases of collective dismissals, the use of age as a selection criterion is allowed if they are accompanied by measures to protect workers close to retirement.

In this case, the TSJ concludes that it was not a collective dismissal, and there is no mention that the age criterion was established through a consultation process. Furthermore, the employer recognized the unfairness of the dismissal and offered compensation. In contrast, the worker provided evidence of age discrimination, including being the only one laid off on the project, his position being filled by a younger worker, positive evaluations through 2020, and the promotion of a generational renewal in the company, with a high percentage of layoffs among older employees. Therefore, the court finds that age discrimination has been proven.

Regarding compensation, the TSJ agrees with the decision of the previous instance and confirms the compensation of 20,000 euros for moral damages.

The company presented an appeal for unification of doctrine that was inadmissible by the Supreme Court, confirming the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid.