An employee classified as an “operations officer […] with driving duties” tested “positive […] in a screening test for the use of narcotic/psychotropic substances” whilst his driving licence was suspended pending renewal in July 2022. In September 2022, the occupational health doctor “offered him a detoxification programme, to which he agreed”.
Subsequently, the same employee was suspended by his employer – pursuant to Article 46 of Annex A to Royal Decree No. 148/1931 – because the positive screening result had been ‘confirmed by the test carried out at the Local Health Authority’ in December 2022. The company also initiated disciplinary proceedings, accusing the employee of both “drug addiction” and the fact that “he had been receiving treatment at the SERT for 11 years without having informed the company or the occupational health doctor, thereby jeopardising the safety of the business and passengers, his own safety and the integrity of the vehicles”. Following the outcome of the proceedings, the employee was dismissed for just cause.
The Court of Rome dismissed the appeal brought by the employee against the company’s decision.
The Court of Appeal of Rome, “overturning the first-instance ruling in its entirety, declared the dismissal unlawful and ordered the company to reinstate” the employee.
The Territorial College, as far as it was of interest here, valued the fact that “in the period between the determination of the fact that substances had been taken and the disciplinary charge, the employee had declared that he intended to undertake a detoxification process, which was reiterated during the disciplinary hearing and effectively pursued” and that “art. 124 of Presidential Decree no. 309/1990 and the 2008 State – Regions Conference provision ruled out the possibility that the employee, who tested positive, could be fired if he expressed his desire to detox”.
The company filed an appeal in cassation against the aforementioned ruling.
The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 2375 of February 4, 2026, rejected the employer’s appeal.
First of all, the ruling analyses the provision of art. 124 of Presidential Decree no. 309/1990 which thus provides “Workers whose drug addiction status is established, who intend to access therapeutic and rehabilitation services at the health services of local health units or other therapeutic-rehabilitation and social-assistance facilities, if employed on a permanent basis, they have the right to retain their job for the time during which the suspension of work benefits is due to the performance of rehabilitation treatment and, in any case, for a period not exceeding three years […]”.
According to the Supreme Court, the territorial panel correctly interpreted this provision, also placing itself in line with the precedent of legitimacy (Cass. 24453/2022) according to which the rationale of this provision is “to assign workers with drug addiction problems a right to retain their jobs, under certain conditions: undergo a therapeutic-rehabilitation program and carry it out positively on unpaid leave”.
The appeal ruling –in this case – had precisely noted that “between the taking of narcotic substances and the disciplinary charge, the worker had declared that he wanted to undertake a detoxification process, as confirmed during the disciplinary hearing and actually pursued” and this had been “correctly considered sufficient, with a view to balancing interests required by the law, in order to prevent the dismissal of the drug-addicted worker”.