Claimed back pain, documented doing renovation work - and was fired
A private investigator documented the employee cleaning a balcony, carrying water containers, and helping to paint a house while she was on sick leave. The court upheld her dismissal, but ruled that she must receive approximately 1,280 euros for 24 unused vacation days.
An employee in Spain was fired after a private investigator documented her carrying water containers, cleaning a balcony, and helping to paint the facade of a house while she was on sick leave due to severe lower back pain. The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands upheld the dismissal but ruled that she is entitled to payment for 24 unused vacation days.
According to the Spanish newspaper Libertad Digital, the employee, who held an administrative position at a landscaping company, went on sick leave in January 2024 after being diagnosed with lumbosacral radiculopathy, also known as sciatica — a condition where pain originating in the lower back can radiate to the leg.
After information reached the company about her activities outside of work, the employer hired a private investigator. During several days of surveillance, from the end of July to the end of August 2024, the employee was documented carrying water containers, cleaning a balcony, and helping to paint the facade of a house.
According to the Spanish website La Razón, she was also documented bending over, holding a ladder, and using paint rollers and spatulas. The investigation report stated that the actions she performed were inconsistent with her medical condition and the reason for her absence from work.
The company received the report on September 9, 2024, and notified the employee of her dismissal on November 5. The dismissal letter claimed that her conduct during sick leave constituted a serious breach of the duty of good faith in employment relations.
The employee appealed to the Labor Court in Puerto del Rosario, but it was determined that her dismissal was justified. She subsequently appealed to the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, arguing, among other things, that more than 60 days had passed since the acts attributed to her, and therefore the company was no longer entitled to take disciplinary action against her.
The court rejected the argument and ruled that the 60-day count began only on the date the company received the full report and was exposed to its findings — and not on the last day of surveillance. Since the dismissal was delivered less than 60 days after receiving the report, it was determined that the company acted within the time frame established by law.
Despite upholding the dismissal, the court ruled that the employee is entitled to 1,279.99 euros gross for 24 vacation days she accrued in 2024 and did not use. It was emphasized that this is payment for her vacation rights, not compensation following the dismissal.
