Judges in Spain have ruled that an Albacete medical clinic unfairly dismissed a receptionist who returned from paternity leave to find the workplace closed.
The Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha held that shutting the facility and ending business activity revealed the employer's intention to terminate the employment relationship, fixing the official dismissal date as 19 February 2025.
The receptionist attempted to return to his job on 27 January 2025 after taking statutory paternity leave that began in October 2024. When he arrived at the clinic, the doors were locked, but he remained officially registered as an active employee on Spanish Social Security records, leaving him unable to enter his workplace and receiving no wages.
The employee worked under a permanent, full-time contract that paid a gross monthly salary of 1,384.50 euros. In Spain, being registered with the Social Security system establishes an administrative record of active employment and tax contributions, but that paperwork conflicted directly with the reality of an employer that had ceased operating.
Conflicting messages and missing dismissal letter
The company never gave the receptionist a formal written dismissal letter. According to the account recorded in the legal proceedings, clinic management first spoke to the worker about giving him a new contract, but later told him that he would not continue with the business.
Faced with an uncertain status, the worker took legal action to clarify whether he remained employed. The initial hearing took place before a local labor court in Albacete, which ruled that dismissal had not been proven because the receptionist was still formally registered with Social Security. That lower court did, however, order the company to pay him 1,153.75 euros in outstanding wages, alongside statutory interest for late payment.
The receptionist appealed against the first-instance decision, arguing that formal registration on administrative rolls failed to reflect a genuine working arrangement in which he could provide his labor and collect his earnings.
The worker's appeal was supported by evidence from a judicial official who visited the clinic's registered address months later to deliver court documents. The officer was unable to carry out the notification because the premises remained shut and all business activity had ended, confirming the receptionist's account that the workplace no longer operated.
High court ruling on tacit dismissal
The High Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha overturned the lower court's ruling, explaining that an employer can carry out a dismissal through conclusive actions even when no written notice is provided. The appellate judges determined that closing down the employee's assigned workplace was sufficient proof that the clinic had ended the contract.
Under Spanish labor law, continuing to register an employee on state records does not erase physical facts that demonstrate the end of an employment relationship. The court focused its ruling on the practical reality of the closure, while clarifying that although the timeline included paternity leave, the evidence presented did not establish that paternity leave was the reason for the dismissal.
Compensation and reinstatement options
The regional high court ordered the clinic to choose between reinstating the receptionist in his role or paying him 1,877.61 euros in statutory severance compensation. If the business chooses reinstatement, it must also pay legal processing wages covering the earnings lost between the dismissal and the ruling, subject to statutory adjustments.
The legal decision gives the choice between reinstatement and compensation strictly to the employer, and the judgment does not state that the receptionist has returned to work or received the financial compensation.
Supreme Court appeal and legal significance
As reported by the regional news service El Digital de Albacete, the judgment from 1 September 2026 was not yet final and could still be challenged before the Spanish Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Madrid acts as the ultimate appellate body for resolving conflicting labor rulings across Spain.
Legal experts note that the case highlights why employment documentation and physical circumstances must be weighed together. When a business shuts its doors, an employer cannot avoid unfair dismissal liabilities merely by maintaining a worker's administrative registration on state records.
