Acceso usuarios
Fermín Gallego Moya 
La STSJ Murcia 197/2026, de 24 de febrero, declara nulo el despido disciplinario de una trabajadora en incapacidad temporal por diabetes a la que la empresa imputó una conducta presuntamente incompatible con su recuperación: haber consumido dos «tintos de verano» durante una cena. Aunque los hechos descritos en la carta de despido resultaron acreditados, la Sala aprecia que la causa real de la extinción no fue el incumplimiento contractual alegado, sino la voluntad empresarial de desprenderse de una trabajadora enferma cuya baja médica se preveía prolongada y económicamente costosa. La resolución judicial, desde la óptica de los artículos 14 y 15 CE desplaza el debate desde la mera trascendencia sancionadora hacia la identificación del móvil real del despido. El pronunciamiento destaca por su tratamiento de la prueba indiciaria, la irrelevancia del pretexto disciplinario y la reparación del daño moral mediante una indemnización de 24.000 euros.
The Murcia High Court of Justice (STSJ Murcia) ruling 197/2026, dated February 24, declared the disciplinary dismissal of a worker on temporary disability leave due to diabetes null and void. The company had accused her of conduct incompatible with her recovery for consuming two glasses of tinto de verano (a wine and lemonade drink) during dinner. Although the facts described in the dismissal letter were proven, the Court found that the real reason for the termination was not the alleged breach of contract, but rather the company's desire to get rid of a sick worker whose medical leave was expected to be prolonged and financially costly. From the perspective of Articles 14 and 15 of the Spanish Constitution, the court's decision shifts the debate from the mere question of the disciplinary grounds for dismissal to identifying the true motive behind it. The ruling is notable for its treatment of circumstantial evidence, the irrelevance of the disciplinary pretext, and the compensation for moral damages in the form of € 24,000.
