Revocation of dismissal and pregnancy status: clarifications from the Court of Cassation in judgment no. 26954 of 2025

The management of employment relationships, and in particular their termination, has always been a subject of intense jurisprudential conflict. Among the most delicate mechanisms introduced by recent reforms is the employer's right to revoke a dismissal, aimed at restoring the employment relationship without interruption. The Court of Cassation, with the recent judgment no. 26954 of 07/10/2025, has intervened to clarify the commencement of the peremptory deadlines for exercising this right, analyzing a specific case involving a pregnant employee.

The case and the decision of the Supreme Court

The dispute involved the employee B. (represented by lawyer C. D. M.) and the employer S. (represented by lawyer C. C.). The central issue concerned the application of Article 5 of Legislative Decree no. 23 of 2015 (Jobs Act), which governs the revocation of dismissal. According to this provision, the employer has the right to revoke the dismissal within fifteen days from the date the employee challenges the dismissal itself. In this case, the employee's defense argued that the subsequent notification of pregnancy should in some way suspend or interrupt this period, given the special protection granted to maternity.

The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, asserting the peremptory and insurmountable nature of the fifteen-day deadline, regardless of the employee's personal conditions that emerged subsequently.

The headnote of judgment no. 26954/2025

To fully understand the scope of the decision, it is useful to read the official headnote issued by the judges of legitimacy:

The peremptory fifteen-day deadline for exercising the potestative right to revoke a dismissal, provided for by Art. 5 of Law no. 23 of 2015, begins to run from the date of the challenge to the employer's dismissal, even if the latter involved a pregnant employee and regardless of the fact that the aforementioned challenge does not mention the pregnancy; therefore, the subsequent production of documentation concerning the pregnancy is irrelevant for the purposes of interrupting or suspending said deadline.

This principle reaffirms legal certainty in employment relationships. The legislator intended to establish a very narrow time window (fifteen days) within which the employer may reconsider and eliminate the effects of the dismissal. This period begins to run strictly from the moment the employee challenges the dismissal and cannot be influenced by subsequent communications, even if they relate to constitutionally guaranteed protections such as maternity.

Practical implications for employers and employees

The Court of Cassation's ruling offers important operational insights for both parties to the employment relationship. In particular, it highlights the importance of timeliness and precision in formal communications. Here are the key points to consider:

• For the employer: the fifteen-day window for revocation is rigid. Any decision to restore the relationship must be made and communicated promptly following the challenge, without waiting for further developments or documentation.
• For the employee: the challenge to a dismissal initiates a time-bound mechanism. If there are obstructive conditions or special protections (such as pregnancy), these should ideally be known or communicated promptly, it being understood that they do not affect the running of the employer's revocation period once the challenge has been notified.
• The certainty of legal relationships: the Court of Cassation prefers to protect the stability and predictability of the legal effects of unilateral acts, preventing forfeiture periods from being extended by external events not provided for by the law.

Conclusions

With judgment no. 26954 of 2025, the Labor Section of the Court of Cassation reaffirms the line of strict interpretation regarding dismissals and increasing protections. Maternity protection, while being a primary value of the Italian and European legal systems, must be coordinated with the procedural rules and peremptory deadlines established by the Jobs Act. This decision serves as a warning to professionals in the sector, who are called upon to pay the utmost attention to the management of procedural and extrajudicial timelines.