Spanish Court Orders Burger King to Reinstate Worker Fired After Reporting Covid-19 Symptoms
Table of Contents
A Murcia court has ruled in favor of a former Burger King Spain S.L.U. employee, ordering the company to reinstate him, pay lost wages, and provide €9,000 in damages after he was dismissed during his probationary period for reporting potential Covid-19 symptoms. The December 31, 2025, ruling underscores the enduring legal ramifications of the pandemic and reinforces protections for workers against discrimination based on health status.
Despite the widespread perception that the Covid-19 pandemic is over, legal battles stemming from the crisis continue to unfold. This case highlights the ongoing scrutiny of employer actions taken during a period of unprecedented public health concerns. The court’s decision serves as a stark reminder that even during probationary periods, employers cannot act in violation of fundamental rights.
Dismissal Deemed Unfair
The High Court of Justice in Murcia determined that Burger King’s dismissal of the employee was unfair. The company had argued that terminating the contract during the probationary period required no specific justification, citing Article 14.2 of the Workers’ Statute. However, the court countered that this power cannot be used for discriminatory purposes or to infringe upon fundamental rights, referencing the Constitutional Court’s doctrine (STC 166/1988).
The circumstances surrounding the dismissal were particularly swift. According to the court’s findings, the worker informed the company on the same day of his dismissal that he was feeling unwell and was living with a relative who had tested positive for Covid-19. Just thirty minutes later, he received notification of his termination, ostensibly for “failure to pass the probationary period.”
Lack of Objective Justification
The court found that Burger King failed to demonstrate an “objective, sufficient and non-discriminatory” cause for the dismissal, as required by the Law Regulating Social Jurisdiction (article 96.1 LRJS). The ruling emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the employer to justify any action based on “real and proportionate” grounds.
“Therefore, we must conclude that the defendant’s action, dismissing the plaintiff, for failure to pass the probationary period, solely because of his temporary illness…unquestionably entailed a negative and prejudicial action, reactive to the exercise of such basic constitutional rights as the right to health,” the court stated, as reported by SUR. The decision specifically referenced the rights to health (art. 43 EC), access to healthcare (art. 43 EC), Social Security benefits (art. 41 EC), and physical integrity (art. 15 EC).
Compensation and Reinstatement
In addition to reinstatement, the court upheld the lower court’s award of €9,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damages. This amount, the court reasoned, reflects the injury to the worker’s fundamental rights to physical integrity and health, and is intended to serve both a restorative and preventative function, aligning with recent Supreme Court case law (SSTS 356/2022 and 503/2023).
Burger King Spain S.L.U. is also obligated to pay the worker all lost wages accrued from the time of dismissal until his reinstatement, along with an additional €350 for outstanding salary and holiday pay. Furthermore, the company must cover the costs of the appeal, totaling €800.
This ruling sends a clear message to employers: protecting employee health and upholding fundamental rights remain paramount, even in the context of probationary periods and evolving public health landscapes. The case serves as a potent example of how courts are continuing to address the long-term consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic on the workforce.
