Canary Islands High Court Rules Against Firm for Denying Childcare Leave
The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has ruled that Aeromédica Canaria acted discriminatorily by denying an employee paid leave to care for her nursing child, establishing a precedent for more flexible interpretations of work-life balance regulations.
The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) has set a major precedent for work-life balance rights by ruling against Aeromédica Canaria. The court found that the company acted unlawfully when it denied paid leave to an employee who needed to care for her nursing child. By overturning a lower court’s decision, the TSJC affirmed that the company’s refusal was discriminatory and failed to provide the necessary protection for a child.
The dispute began in February 2025, when the employee—who has worked for the company since 2020—requested leave to care for her 15-month-old son. She provided a medical report from the Canary Islands Health Service recommending three days of maternal care. However, the company rejected the request, labeled the absence as "absenteeism," and deducted 84.12 euros from her salary, arguing that the medical documentation did not prove a "serious illness."
The TSJC’s Social Chamber rejected the company's stance. The court ruled that under current regulations, specifically Royal Decree-Law 5/2023, the law should be interpreted flexibly rather than through excessive bureaucracy. The magistrates argued that requiring parents to prove the severity of an infant’s illness is unreasonable, as it forces them to disclose sensitive health information. They emphasized that the definition of "serious illness" must account for the biological realities of a child, rather than applying an adult-centered standard that ignores basic care needs.
The court declared the company’s actions void and ordered it to refund the 84.12 euros. Additionally, the company was ordered to pay 1,500 euros in moral damages to the mother and another 1,500 euros to the child, acknowledging the child’s own rights in the legal process. The court concluded that the company’s actions constituted both direct discrimination against the mother and discrimination by association against the child.
The ruling was not unanimous. One magistrate issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that a "gender perspective" should not be used to lower the legal requirements for such leave. The dissenting judge maintained that the law requires stricter proof regarding the nature of an illness or the need for hospitalization. This disagreement highlights the ongoing tension between the protective, flexible application of work-life balance laws and a more literal, rigid interpretation of legal statutes.