ROME – Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation has ruled that an employee, even one in a safety-sensitive position like a bus driver, cannot be dismissed if they voluntarily seek rehabilitation for substance abuse, a decision handed down on February 4, 2026 (Cass. Sez. Lav. N. 2376/2026). The ruling underscores a legal principle prioritizing health and recovery over punitive measures in cases of employee addiction.
The case centered on an individual employed by ATAC Spa, Rome’s public transportation authority, who tested positive for drugs during a routine screening shortly after being hired under a probationary contract. Even as the initial ruling by the Court of Appeal favored the employer, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, stating that the employee’s expressed intention to enter a rehabilitation program effectively negated the severity of the offense. The court specifically noted that the employee’s willingness to seek treatment was communicated during the disciplinary hearing.
This decision builds upon previous jurisprudence, including a 2026 ruling (Cass. Sez. Lav. N. 2375/2026) that affirmed the right of employees with substance abuse issues to maintain their employment if they commit to therapeutic and rehabilitative programs. Italian law, specifically Article 124 of DPR 309/1990, protects workers facing addiction, mandating suspension from risky duties rather than outright termination.
However, the right to job preservation is not unconditional. Employers are legally obligated to immediately remove employees from positions that pose a risk to public safety upon confirmation of substance abuse (Article 125, comma 3, DPR 309/1990). The court’s ruling clarifies that this suspension should be followed by a verification of the employee’s willingness to participate in a treatment program, such as those offered by the SerD (Servizi per le Dipendenze), and the granting of unpaid leave for the duration of the rehabilitation process.
The period of unpaid leave is capped at a maximum of three years, with no accrual of seniority or contractual benefits during that time. Collective bargaining agreements may offer more favorable terms, but the legal framework guarantees reinstatement upon successful completion of the program and a medical clearance for resuming duties.
The Cassation’s ruling also addressed the issue of employees concealing a pre-existing addiction. In the case of the bus driver, the individual had been receiving treatment for eleven years without informing the company. Despite this omission, the court upheld the right to job security, emphasizing that the employee’s commitment to rehabilitation at the time of the drug test outweighed the lack of transparency. The court indicated that the potential harm posed by operating public transport while addicted was mitigated by the decision to seek treatment. The employee was awarded compensation potentially reaching twelve months’ salary.
While the ruling establishes a clear pathway for rehabilitation and job preservation, it does not apply to probationary periods. A separate Cassation ruling on February 4, 2026 (Cass. Sez. Lav. N. 2376/2026) confirmed the legitimacy of terminating a probationary contract when a candidate tested positive for drugs on their first day of employment, as the employer had not yet committed to a long-term employment relationship.
