Dismissal in the Age of AI: when technology justifies workforce reductions
By Judgment No. 9135 of 19 November 2025, the Court of Rome confirmed the lawfulness of a dismissal for objective justified reasons (giustificato motivo oggettivo) involving a worker whose duties had been absorbed by the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. The ruling clarifies that process automation, coupled with a documented corporate crisis, justifies the suppression of specific job roles when they are no longer functional to the company’s technological core business.
The decision reaffirms that the duty of repêchage (the obligation to find alternative employment) is not absolute: while the employer must prove that redeployment is impossible, they cannot be compelled to relocate a redundant employee into roles requiring radically different technical skills. This judgment highlights that organisational choices aimed at efficiency through AI are not subject to judicial review on their merits (insindacabilità nel merito), provided their authenticity and the causal link to the dismissal are proven.
Factual Background: Between Financial Crisis and Technological Innovation
The case concerned a Junior Graphic Designer dismissed following a corporate restructuring. The employer, a high-tech and Cyber Security firm, justified the decision citing a severe financial crisis and the strategic need to eliminate positions not strictly related to software production.
The claimant argued that the dismissal was a pretext, claiming her duties had not vanished but were simply reassigned. However, the evidentiary phase revealed a different reality. The company successfully demonstrated a "state of crisis"—evidenced by arrears in rent, formal insolvency proceedings, and drastic staff reductions—alongside a radical shift in its organisational direction where the creative team was sacrificed in favour of the technical core business.
A modern legal precedent was set by the Marketing Manager’s testimony: simpler graphic design tasks had been largely absorbed by AI tools. The adoption of AI, combined with the consolidation of remaining functions into senior roles, rendered the claimant's position redundant while simultaneously ensuring cost savings and faster processing.
The "Repêchage" Conflict: The Burden of Proof
A pivotal point of the judgment concerns the duty of repêchage—the employer's obligation to verify the impossibility of relocating the employee to other compatible roles before proceeding with dismissal.
The Court of Rome reiterated several fundamental principles:
- Burden of Proof: The employer must demonstrate the impossibility of redeployment, which can be achieved through circumstantial or presumptive evidence.
- Specific Professionalism: An employer is not required to retrain or relocate an employee into roles requiring entirely different technical expertise. In this case, the claimant’s background in graphic design was not considered interchangeable with the Cyber Intelligence or software development skills required for the surviving projects.
- Distinction of Duties: The Court clarified that the profile of a Graphic Designer (focused on imagery and merchandising) is technically distinct from Web Design or UX/UI Design, which require specific user-interface knowledge that the employee did not possess.
Final Considerations
The judgment confirms that a dismissal for objective reasons is lawful whenever there is a causal link between business needs (crisis or restructuring) and the suppression of a role. If technological innovation, such as AI, renders a function obsolete, the court cannot question the business's entrepreneurial choices, but only verify their factual existence.
In an evolving labour market, this ruling underscores the vital importance of continuous upskilling: the distinction between "traditional" and "technical" competencies is becoming the primary factor in determining whether a role remains viable or can be lawfully suppressed.
