Abstract
What happens if an employee insults their superior? The Italian Supreme Court (Cassazione no. 21103/2025 and no. 16925/2025) has confirmed that, in certain cases, even a single episode may legitimize dismissal for just cause. In this article, we analyze two recent 2025 rulings, reconstructing the legal parameters with which insubordination is assessed, between freedom of criticism and breach of the bond of trust.
When an argument leads to job loss: what the Italian Supreme Court says
It is not always necessary to resort to physical violence to lose one’s job: sometimes a single word too many is enough. Two recent orders of the Italian Supreme Court (no. 21103/2025 and no. 16925/2025) once again deal with insubordination in the workplace, confirming that even a single episode may justify dismissal for just cause, if the worker’s reaction irreparably undermines the fiduciary relationship.
In the first case, a female worker reacted to an order given by her manager by calling him a vulgar name, «leccac**» (bootlic***), uttered moreover in front of a colleague. The company ordered dismissal for just cause. At first instance, the Catania Court found the measure disproportionate, suggesting a conservative sanction; but on appeal the decision was overturned, also emphasizing the existence of a prior disciplinary sanction.
In the second episode, even more heated, the employee reacted to a reprimand with «ma va’ a cag**» (go to h**), later denying the episode despite the presence of a witness. A few hours later, the tension escalated: he refused to carry out an order, moving close to his superior’s face with a defiant tone: «If I don’t give you the document what will you do? Hit me?».
In both cases, the Italian Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of dismissal for just cause, recognizing that the conduct had exceeded the limits of a mere quarrel. According to the Court, the worker’s reaction was such as to make the continuation—even temporary—of the employment relationship incompatible, undermining the necessary respect for corporate hierarchy.
Which insults determine dismissal
Not every quarrel with a superior constitutes conduct sanctionable by dismissal. However, there are cases in which the word becomes an act of insubordination, and the offense, if serious and directed at the superior, may cost the worker their job. This has been established by now consolidated case law, which recognizes breach of the fiduciary bond as one of the foundational elements of dismissal for just cause.
According to the Court of Cassation, the notion of insubordination includes not only openly offensive or denigrating expressions (Cass. no. 18247/2009; Cass. no. 7838/2005), but also provocative behavior, threats, unjustified refusals to carry out legitimate orders, and, more generally, any conduct that represents an explicit challenge to corporate authority.
In the two recent cases, expressions such as «leccac**» and «ma va’ a cag**» were not considered mere colorful remarks or outbursts of anger. On the contrary, they were classified as “insubordination qualified by insult”, i.e., acts which—even if isolated—directly damage the hierarchical structure of the organization and compromise its functioning.
In this context, the Supreme Court also clarified some useful principles to guide the assessment of the seriousness of the conduct:
- reiteration of insults or quarrels is not required as provided for by some collective agreements: even a single episode may suffice if particularly serious;
- verbal offense does not need to escalate into violent acts to legitimize dismissal;
- the long duration of the employment relationship or the worker’s personal hardships do not in themselves exclude disciplinary liability;
- a previous disciplinary sanction, although not technically a “recidivism”, may be considered as an indicator of a negative trend and reinforce the seriousness judgment;
- the judge may also base the decision on atypical evidence (such as written statements of third parties), if corroborated by other elements and subjected to critical review.
Aggravating the circumstances, according to the judges, were other factors: the presence of witnesses, the refusal to perform simple tasks (such as handing over a photocopy), and the provocative manner in which the employees acted. These are factors that increase the harmful scope of the conduct, making it legitimate—according to the Court—to immediately terminate the employment relationship, even in the absence of recidivism.
Quarrelsome employees or troublemaking bosses?
Dismissal for just cause is not automatic, not even when an employee offends their superior. The expulsion sanction may be imposed only when the conduct is, in practice, outside the parameters dictated by context, role, or circumstances. This is the guiding principle reiterated by the Italian Supreme Court: seriousness must be assessed case by case, not on the basis of abstract automatisms. If trust is broken, however, dismissal is legitimate.
For the employer, this entails an obligation of concrete and proportionate evaluation. Article 7 of the Workers’ Statute requires that disciplinary charges be immediate, specific, and detailed, and the worker must be given the opportunity to defend themselves.
In addition, the applicable National Collective Bargaining Agreement (CCNL) represents a fundamental parameter to verify whether the sanction imposed is consistent with the scale of seriousness provided by national bargaining. At the same time, judges are not rigidly bound by the CCNL provisions. They may take into account accessory circumstances, such as the presence of previous disciplinary sanctions (have similar incidents already occurred?), the context in which the fact occurred, the tone and language used, or the worker’s reaction to the charge.
Even a single offense, if uttered with a denigrating intent and in a conspicuous manner, can justify dismissal, provided that the irreparability of the fiduciary bond is demonstrated.
An implicit but central issue remains: what if the superior provoked the worker? In these cases, the judge’s assessment must take into account the overall dynamics of the conflict, without automatically assigning fault to the subordinate. Proportionality concerns not only the employee’s behavior, but also the correctness of the employer’s actions. This is often where defense strategy and the lawyer’s ability to steer the evidence come into play in the event of litigation.
Criticizing the boss is allowed, offending them is not
One of the most delicate aspects in labor disputes concerns the boundary between legitimate criticism and sanctionable offense. The Supreme Court has clarified that the employee has the right to express dissent, even firmly, provided that it respects form and context, especially when the conduct required by the employer is unlawful.
When, however, dissent takes on offensive, vulgar, or provocative tones, it leaves the sphere of freedom of expression and enters that of disciplinary violation.
In the context of the two 2025 rulings, the insults directed at superiors had no critical or argumentative purpose: they were, according to the Court, gratuitous epithets, expressions of defiance, and denigrating attitudes incompatible with the respect owed to internal hierarchies. The presence of other employees or the repetition of provocative behavior further reinforced the finding of incompatibility between the conduct and the continuation of the employment relationship.
An additional—and often overlooked—aspect concerns the dissemination of insults outside the company, particularly through social networks (i.e.: Dismissal for online comments: the Cassation’s perspective). In such cases, the offense may exceed the boundaries of labor law and assume criminal significance, amounting to the offenses of insult (now decriminalized) or defamation. It is no coincidence that case law has stressed how the public context and the conspicuousness of communication aggravate the harmful impact of the act.
Nevertheless, it must be remembered that the employer’s disciplinary power is far from unlimited. Dismissal for just cause—even in cases of offenses or tensions—must always respect the principle of proportionality. In particular:
- the sanction must be commensurate with the seriousness of the conduct, avoiding arbitrary or disproportionate decisions;
- dismissal represents the extrema ratio, to be applied only when no room remains for continuation of the relationship;
- the disciplinary procedure must respect the principles of immediacy and specificity of the alleged facts, as well as the worker’s right of defense;
- the applicable CCNL offers a useful reference to identify proportionate sanctions, but does not bind the judge absolutely;
- the judge may evaluate the concrete circumstances, such as prior disciplinary sanctions or the actual breach of the fiduciary bond, even departing from contractual provisions.
It is not the content of dissent that determines the sanction, but the manner in which it is expressed.
© Canella Camaiora S.t.A. S.r.l. - All rights reserved.
Publication date: 22 September 2025
Textual reproduction of the article is permitted, even for commercial purposes, within the limit of 15% of its entirety, provided that the source is clearly indicated. In the case of online reproduction, a link to the original article must be included. Unauthorised reproduction or paraphrasing without indication of source will be prosecuted.
Debora Teruggia
Laureata presso l'Università degli Studi di Milano, praticante avvocato appassionato di Diritto del Lavoro e Diritto di Famiglia.