Canary Islands Court Upholds Dismissal of Worker Over Physical Ineptitude
The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has upheld the dismissal of a hotel worker for "supervening ineptitude," ruling that the employer sufficiently proved the impossibility of accommodating her physical limitations.
A recent ruling by the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands highlights the legal challenges companies face when dismissing employees due to "supervening ineptitude"—a situation where an employee is no longer physically capable of performing their job. The court upheld the dismissal of a hotel worker who had been declared unfit for her usual duties by the company’s health and safety team following a period of permanent disability.
The employee, who had worked for the hotel chain since 2013, challenged her dismissal, arguing it was unfair. The company maintained that it was impossible to accommodate her or move her to another role, such as the pastry department. They provided evidence that her physical restrictions—which included a three-kilogram lifting limit and a need to avoid repetitive movements or straining her spine—made her incompatible with the available roles.
Although the Social Security administration suggested in 2024 that the employee’s health had improved enough for her to return to work, the court sided with the company’s technical reports. The judges rejected the employee’s claim for 15,465 euros in compensation, concluding that the hotel had properly assessed potential vacancies and clearly communicated her functional limitations at the time of her dismissal.
The court also addressed the issue of notice. While the company did not provide formal prior notice, the judges ruled that because the employee had already received the required financial compensation in lieu of notice, her legal rights were satisfied.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough documentation in objective dismissal cases. While the court supported the employer in this instance, the magistrates emphasized that simply labeling an employee "unfit" is not enough; companies must still provide clear evidence that they cannot reasonably accommodate the worker. As the ruling is not yet final, it may be appealed to the Supreme Court, leaving the debate over workplace adaptation and physical limitations ongoing.