The Supreme Court considers that, in the specific case, the reason for the dismissal was the worker's age, and consequently, declares its nullity because it is a discriminatory dismissal.
The worker had been providing his services since 2011, and in mid-2020 the company notified him of the objective termination of the employment relationship due to an organizational restructuring caused by the decline in sales. In addition, he sent him a proposal for compensation for unfair dismissal. The company did not amortize said position, but instead filled it with another younger employee, who also did not belong to the same project on which the dismissed employee worked. He sued the company, considering that it was a discriminatory dismissal based on age.
The Social Court no. Said resolution was appealed by the company, and a ruling was issued by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, on October 20, 2022, which dismissed the appeal filed and, consequently, confirmed the contested ruling. Finally, the company filed an appeal for the unification of doctrine against the ruling of the aforementioned Social Chamber, invoking the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-León, dated October 18, 2022, to support the contradiction.
For the Supreme Court Chamber, the contradiction only arises from an opposition of specific pronouncements falling into substantially equal conflicts and argues that from the comparison of the sentences there is no such contradiction, since the factual assumptions are different, as well as the scope of the debates and the reason for deciding. And consequently, it declares by means of an Order the inadmissibility of the appeal for cassation due to unification of doctrine and the finality of the appealed sentence.