A COURT has ruled in favour of an employee after Mercadona hired a private detective to catch him walking his dog while off on medical leave.
The verdict concluded that the worker carrying out everyday activities while on medical leave for rheumatoid arthritis was not grounds for dismissal.
The High Court of Justice of Castile and Leon has ordered the Spanish supermarket giant to either reinstate the worker under his original conditions and pay back wages, or provide a compensation payout of €39,845.25.
The employee, who had been with the company for more than 14 years, was fired in February 2025.
His dismissal came after he was filmed him in January 2025 walking his dog, doing grocery shopping, visiting a laundromat, and making short motorbike trips.
Initially, the Social Court of Leon dismissed the employee’s claim, ruling in favour of the company.
However, he challenged the decision by filing an appeal with the High Court of Justice of Castile and Leon.
While Mercadona claimed the detective’s report proved the worker was exaggerating or faking his condition, the High Court rejected that argument, noting that sick leave does not automatically require complete rest and depends entirely on the nature of the illness.
The employee went on sick leave in December 2024 due to rheumatoid arthritis, a chronic inflammatory disease.
Medical reports set out clear limitations, including avoiding prolonged kneeling, repeated squatting, sustained pressure with both hands and exposure to cold temperatures.
His job involved cleaning machinery and floors in refrigerated storage rooms at around 12C, conditions that directly clashed with his diagnosis.
The court found that the activities observed were part of normal daily life and did not hinder his recovery or contradict medical advice.
The ruling also confirmed that the worker suffers from a genuine and ongoing condition requiring treatment.
In addition, the court also corrected his salary to €2,517.05 gross per month.
While the judges did not find evidence of discrimination based on illness, they ruled that dismissal was a disproportionate response.
The ruling is not final and may still be appealed before the Supreme Court.
Click here to read more Other News from The Olive Press.
