She says she is a lesbian to her colleague, for the Cassation she is to be fired immediately

It is "undeniable the consequence of the evolution of society in recent decades the acquisition of awareness of the respect that any choice of sexual orientation deserves" and of the fact that it "relates to an intimate and absolutely private sphere of the person" therefore "the intrusion into such a sphere" with "mockery mode", - saying to a colleague "how are you pregnant? aren't you a lesbian?"

- in the workplace and in the presence of users,

.

The Supreme Court underlines this.

Thus the Supreme Court - verdict 7029 of the Labor Section - upheld the appeal of Tper spa, an Emilian public transport company, which wanted to dismiss one of its employee drivers, for "just cause" and without any right to compensation, who at the time bus stop had addressed to a colleague, who had recently given birth to twins, the phrase "but why did you come out pregnant too? but why aren't you a lesbian?", and with a "derisory" attitude she added "and how are you got pregnant?"

The woman, also a driver, had immediately presented a complaint to the employer company which, in turn, had contested the driver, Michele M., for having engaged in "a behavior seriously harmful to the principles of the company Code of Ethics and rules of civil coexistence" and had fired the employee on the spot.

But then the judges of the Court of Appeal of Bologna, in 2020, had deemed the dismissal excessive, for what for them was only "inurban behavior", and had 'reduced' it to a unilateral withdrawal by the employer, condemning the Tper to pay the driver twenty months' salary.

According to the judges on the merits, the dismissal - not accompanied by any form of remuneration and notice - was "disproportionate" to the "objective size" of the "

"In fact, it refers - continues the verdict - to a behavior contrary only to the rules of good manners and the formal aspects of civil life, where the content of the expressions used, and the further factual circumstances in which the employee's behavior must be contextualised, are in contrast with much more pregnant values, by now rooted in the general conscience and expression of general principles of the legal system".

In this regard, the Cassation recalls that the Code of Equal Opportunities between men and women - Legislative Decree no.

198/2006 - also considers "harassment" as "discrimination", i.e. "those unwanted behaviours, carried out for reasons connected to sex, having the purpose or

Especially with regard to the position "of those who find themselves subjected to unwanted behavior in the context of the employment relationship for reasons related to sex".

In conclusion, the Cassation ordered the Court of Appeal to review its decision by verifying "the

in the light of the correct reference value scale" as "reconstructed" by the 'stoats' themselves.