Zoom
Employment Burger chain worker compensated to tune of 9,000 euros after being dismissed within half an hour of saying he had CovidA High Court of Justice in Spain's Murcia region has ruled that the dismissal of the employee was unfair and has ordered his reinstatement, the payment of lost wages and the payment of the large sum for damages
Malaga
Wednesday, 31 December 2025, 12:20
After almost six years since it started, the Covid-19 pandemic feels like a bad memory. However, to this day there are still cases pending in the courts related to that time. Justice is slow, but in the end it does rule and on this occasion it has ruled in favour of a worker who was fired during his probationary period when he called in to say that he had the coronavirus.
The High Court of Justice in Murcia has ruled that the dismissal of the employee of Burger King Spain S.L.U. was unfair and has ordered his reinstatement, the payment of lost wages and the payment of 9,000 euros for damages.
The court examined the appeal brought by the company, which argued that the termination of the contract during the probationary period did not require a specific statement of reasons and was covered by Article 14.2 of the Workers' Statute. However, the court ruled that the power to fire someone during the probationary period cannot be exercised for discriminatory purposes or in violation of fundamental rights, in accordance with the doctrine of the Constitutional Court (STC 166/1988).
The decision highlighted that the worker had informed the company, on the same day of the dismissal, that he was unwell and that he was living with a relative who had tested positive for Covid-19. Thirty minutes later, the company notified him of his dismissal for "failure to pass the probationary period".
The court concluded that the company did not accredit an "objective, sufficient and non-discriminatory" cause for the dismissal, as provided for in the Law Regulating Social Jurisdiction (article 96.1 LRJS).
The ruling pointed out that it is up to the employer to justify that its action is based on "real and proportionate" grounds. In this case, the company did not provide objective arguments to justify the loss of confidence or the alleged unsuitability of the worker for the job. "Therefore, we must conclude that the defendant's action, dismissing the plaintiff, for failure to pass the probationary period, solely because of his temporary illness, even questioning the professional origin of the same, having previously been hired briefly to perform the same functions, unquestionably entailed a negative and prejudicial action, reactive to the exercise of such basic constitutional rights as the right to health (art. 43 EC) and the right to access to health care (art. 43 EC). 43 EC) and that of access to Social Security benefits (art. 41 EC), detrimental to the fundamental right to physical integrity enshrined in art. 15 EC", according to the resolution consulted by SUR.
With regard to compensation for non-pecuniary damages, the High Court upheld the amount set by the lower court (9,000 euros), considering that the injury to the fundamental right to physical integrity and health entails automatic non-pecuniary damages, the assessment of which must fulfil a restorative and preventive function, according to the case law of the Supreme Court (SSTS 356/2022 and 503/2023). "The dismissal of the worker responded exclusively to his state of health and not to causes inherent to the employment relationship," the ruling stated.
In addition, the company must pay the lost wages from the time of dismissal until reinstatement, as well as 350 euros in outstanding salary and holiday pay. The court also ordered the company to pay the costs of the appeal (800 euros).