HIV+ man's dismissal from work is justified, says Supreme Court decision
13/04/2009
Submitted by
Themis Katsagiannis
The Supreme Court in Greece (Areios Pagos) has decided that the dismissal of a man from his work, due to his HIV+ status is justified.
The unidentified man was fired from his job at the accounting department of a clothing company, after his coworkers persistently demanded his dismissal. They characteristically said “it is him, or us”. The man had revealed his HIV+ status to his boss a few days after finding out himself, so as to ask for a few days leave. When he returned to his work, the decision of his dismissal was announced. He therefore, resorted to the court.
The plaintiff won the case both in the First Instance Court and the Court of Appeals and the clothing company was forced to pay 7 539 euro as monetary compensation for moral damages and salaries in default. In the Supreme Court, one of the judges Irene Athanasiou proposed that the decision of the Court of Appeals be partly recalled, because the company was exercising its legal right to keep the working environment peaceful, refering to the reactions of the other employees.
The decision of the Supreme Court was published on March 17 and it went against the previous court rulings. The Supreme Court said the company had a legitimate right to protect its peaceful operations and therefore the dismissal of the employee was not done maliciously or vindictively.
The unidentified man was fired from his job at the accounting department of a clothing company, after his coworkers persistently demanded his dismissal. They characteristically said “it is him, or us”. The man had revealed his HIV+ status to his boss a few days after finding out himself, so as to ask for a few days leave. When he returned to his work, the decision of his dismissal was announced. He therefore, resorted to the court.
The plaintiff won the case both in the First Instance Court and the Court of Appeals and the clothing company was forced to pay 7 539 euro as monetary compensation for moral damages and salaries in default. In the Supreme Court, one of the judges Irene Athanasiou proposed that the decision of the Court of Appeals be partly recalled, because the company was exercising its legal right to keep the working environment peaceful, refering to the reactions of the other employees.
The decision of the Supreme Court was published on March 17 and it went against the previous court rulings. The Supreme Court said the company had a legitimate right to protect its peaceful operations and therefore the dismissal of the employee was not done maliciously or vindictively.


