Prepared by Francesca Tironi, Giulia Spalazzi, Giulia Duso and Alessia Brambilla
Judgment no. 9135 of 19 November 2025 of the Rome Labour Court, while not introducing radically new legal principles, is of particular interest for the application of well-established case law to a modern business context characterized by economic crisis, corporate reorganization and the use of new technologies such as artificial intelligence.
The decision provides relevant insights into the progressive automation of certain job functions as well as the transformation of the corporate organizational model.
Background of the dispute
The case concerns an employee classified at level IV of the National Collective Labour Agreement for companies in the trade sector (Trade NCLA), employed as a graphic designer within the creative team of a company operating in the cybersecurity sector.
The employer terminated the employment relationship for justified objective reason (so called “gmo”). The employee challenged the dismissal, arguing that the alleged reorganization was merely pretextual, that her duties had not actually been eliminated and that the company had failed to comply with the so‑called repêchage obligation, by not assessing the possibility of redeploying her to positions compatible with her professional profile.
Conversely, the employer proved in court that it was undergoing a significant economic and financial crisis at the time of the dismissal, documenting the progressive reduction of the workforce, the reorganization of the corporate structure and the consequent strategic decision to focus resources on the technological core business, namely software development and cyber intelligence activities.
A key issue in the proceedings was the finding that the graphic design activities carried out by the dismissed employee had first been centralized and then progressively scaled down until their substantial elimination, also through the use of artificial intelligence tools, deemed capable of ensuring adequate levels of quality, speed and cost efficiency.
The Court’s decision
The Court fully dismissed the employee’s claim, holding that the company had provided full evidence of the reasons underlying the dismissal for justified objective reason.
First, the Court ascertained the existence of an actual business crisis, supported by multiple documentary and testimonial elements, including the progressive reduction of staff, witness statements, the corporate transformation from a joint-stock company (“S.p.A.”) into a limited liability company (“S.r.l.”), an eviction for non‑payment of rent and the initiation of a negotiated crisis composition procedure. This framework highlighted a situation of genuine difficulty requiring incisive organizational measures.
The judgment refers to the well‑established principle whereby, in the case of dismissal for justified objective reasons, the employer must prove not only the existence of the alleged economic and organizational needs, but also the causal link between those needs and the elimination of the specific job position. Case law consistently holds that entrepreneurial choices relating to the organization of productive activities – even when aimed at improving efficiency or profitability – are not subject to judicial review on the merits, provided they are not pretextual or instrumental.
In the present case, the Court emphasized, as a legitimate expression of freedom of economic initiative, the impact of the corporate reorganization, which involved disinvestment from non‑strategic areas such as design and marketing, in order to focus resources on the technological core business (software development and cyber intelligence).
The most innovative aspect of the decision lies in the recognition of artificial intelligence as a suitable tool to support corporate reorganization and, consequently, to justify the elimination of a job position. The Court relied on the testimony of the Marketing Manager, who stated that he had progressively absorbed the duties previously performed by the dismissed employee also through the use of AI tools, considered capable of ensuring quality, speed and cost efficiency in a context of business contraction.
From this perspective, the Court implicitly qualified the adoption of AI‑based solutions as a valid organizational reason, aimed at streamlining production processes and containing costs, and therefore capable of rendering the claimant’s position superfluous.
The Court also found that the causal link between the economic crisis, the corporate reorganization and the elimination of the job position had been proven, noting that the company had been forced to implement a compulsory restructuring process, accompanied by multiple dismissals during the relevant period, in order to safeguard remaining employment and business continuity.
As regards the repêchage obligation, the Court recalled the Supreme Court’s case law according to which the employer’s burden of proving the impossibility of redeployment may also be fulfilled through presumptive and circumstantial evidence, since it concerns a negative fact. In the present case, the Court held that this burden had been met on the basis of three main circumstances:
- the company’s strategic decision to exit the design sector, which made the claimant’s specific professional skills unusable, as she lacked the competencies required for the core business areas;
- the progressive reduction of the workforce, which was incompatible with the existence of vacant positions;
- he groundlessness of the alternative positions suggested by the employee, based on the erroneous assumption of interchangeability between the role of graphic designer and the more technical and specialized role of web designer (UX/UI).
Final remarks
The ruling deserves particular attention from at least three perspectives.
First, the Court recognizes, implicitly, that the introduction of artificial intelligence tools may constitute a legitimate element of a corporate reorganization process, provided that such choice is made in a context of an actual crisis and is consistent with a non‑pretextual business strategy. It is therefore not a generalized endorsement of automation as an autonomous ground for dismissal, but rather the acknowledgment that technological evolution may affect the organizational structure of a company, on condition that the employer provides rigorous evidence of the actual elimination of the job position.
Second, the judgment reiterates a fundamental principle in this area: in balancing the employee’s interest in job retention against the company’s interest in reorganization, the latter is destined to prevail where the business needs are concrete and genuine, the job position is effectively eliminated and a direct causal link between the crisis situation and the dismissal is demonstrated.
Finally, the decision aligns with the strictest line of case law regarding the burden of proof, according to which the employer must demonstrate the impossibility of redeploying the employee to equivalent or compatible positions, also by means of presumptive and circumstantial evidence, as this involves a negative fact. In this context, the employee’s failure to identify concretely available alternative positions may contribute to strengthening the employer’s evidentiary framework, without however replacing the employer’s burden of proof.
***
In conclusion, the Rome Labour Court’s judgment, while adhering to consolidated case law principles on dismissal for justified objective reasons, provides a particularly significant application in a context reflecting current labour market dynamics, recognizing the lawfulness of a reorganization that includes the replacement of human work with artificial intelligence.
In a labour market increasingly marked by the integration of human capital and digital tools, the concept of justified objective reasons is likely to intersect more and more frequently with technological innovation. From this perspective, the decision represents an initial and significant judicial confirmation of the compatibility between technological evolution, freedom of economic initiative and employee protection.
Let’s Talk
For a deeper discussion: