AI and Job Dismissals: Rome Court Clarifies Legal Boundaries

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the workplace is raising complex legal questions about job security and dismissal rights. A recent ruling by the Court of Rome, case number 9135 of November 19, 2025, has clarified that while AI can be a factor in corporate restructuring leading to job losses, it cannot be an independent justification for dismissal. The court affirmed that traditional principles of “objective justified reason” still apply, even in the context of AI-driven automation.

The Case: Graphic Designer and Cybersecurity Firm

The case involved a graphic designer employed by a cybersecurity company. Facing economic challenges, the company reorganized its structure, centralizing functions and implementing AI tools to improve efficiency. The graphic designer’s position was eliminated, leading to their dismissal. The employee challenged the dismissal, alleging it was pretextual.

Court’s Ruling: AI as a Tool, Not a Cause

The Court of Rome upheld the employer’s decision, finding the motivations to be well-founded. The ruling emphasized the established criteria for objective justified reason: a genuine economic-organizational need, a clear connection between the reorganization and the elimination of the position, and the impossibility of internal redeployment. Canella Camaiora reports that AI was considered a factor contributing to efficiency gains, but not an autonomous legal basis for the dismissal.

Objective Justified Reason: A Recap

“Objective justified reason” (giustificato motivo oggettivo) is a legal standard in Italy allowing employers to dismiss employees due to organizational, economic, or productive reasons. De Luca Partners explains that this requires demonstrating a legitimate business need for the restructuring and that the employee’s role was genuinely eliminated, not simply redistributed.

The Duty of Repêchage

The court also considered the principle of repêchage – the employer’s obligation to seek alternative positions within the company for the employee before resorting to dismissal. However, the court acknowledged that this obligation can be hard to fulfill in practice, particularly in organizations with reduced structures, highly specialized skills, and limited investment in retraining.

Implications and Future Challenges

The Roman ruling doesn’t introduce new legal precedents but applies existing rules to a changing production landscape. It’s not a blanket approval of automation-driven dismissals, but a reaffirmation that traditional labor laws still apply. The decision highlights the need for a broader societal discussion about managing the impact of AI on the labor market, particularly concerning workforce mobility and retraining opportunities. De Luca Partners notes that the case demonstrates AI’s entry into the ordinary perimeter of labor disputes.

Key Takeaways

• AI can contribute to legitimate job dismissals as part of a broader corporate reorganization.
• Employers must still demonstrate objective, economic-organizational reasons for the dismissal.
• The duty of repêchage remains in effect, though its practical application can be challenging.
• The ruling underscores the need for policies to support workers affected by AI-driven automation.