AI and Dismissal: Implications for Work Organization

The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into production processes is progressively affecting the organization of work and the definition of job duties. This raises a question that is likely to become increasingly frequent in employment litigation: to what extent can the adoption of algorithmic systems justify the elimination of a job position? The recent judgment of the Court of Rome No. 9135 of November 19^th, 2025 provides an initial answer, placing the technological phenomenon within the traditional boundaries of dismissal for objective justified reasons (giustificato motive oggettivo), without introducing automatisms or new legal categories.

This issue is particularly relevant for companies that are gradually introducing automation tools or algorithmic support systems into their operational activities. In such contexts, assessing the impact on work organization and employment relationships becomes increasingly important both from a preventive perspective and in terms of litigation management.

The case and continuity with traditional principles

With judgment No. 9135 of November 19^th, 2025, the Court of Rome addressed one of the first Italian cases in which AI expressly enters the scope of a dispute concerning dismissal for objective justified reasons. The court deemed lawful the dismissal of a graphic designer employed by a company operating in the cybersecurity sector, confirming the genuineness of the corporate reorganization and the actual elimination of the position as part of a broader cost-reduction process following an economic and financial crisis.

The innovative aspect of the case does not lie in the legal rules applied, but rather in the factual circumstance that part of the duties previously performed by the employee had been absorbed by an AI system, used by the employee’s supervisor to carry out the activity more quickly, at a lower cost and, according to the court’s findings, with better quality.

It should be clarified, however, that the decision does not mark the beginning of AI replacing human work. On the contrary, it reaffirms full continuity with the traditional criteria governing dismissal for objective justified reasons: the genuine existence of organizational needs, the causal link between the reorganization and the elimination of the position, and the impossibility of internal reassignment. For companies intending to introduce technological tools into their production processes, this legal continuity implies that the technological dimension does not replace, but rather integrates with the traditional organizational and documentary assessments required by employment law.

Burden of proof, genuineness of reorganization, and freedom of enterprise

The Court held that the burden of proof borne by the employer under Law No. 604/1966 had been satisfied. In particular, the state of crisis was demonstrated through a series of objective elements: corporate restructuring, multiple terminations of employment relationships, eviction due to non-payment, and the initiation of a negotiated crisis procedure. In this context, the decision to intervene in non-core departments, including the design department, was deemed consistent with a plan for structural cost reduction.

With regard to the causal link, the judge found that the claimant’s position had actually been eliminated. Some duties had been removed, while others had been assigned to the employee’s supervisor, who carried them out with the assistance of AI. In line with established case law of the Court of Cassation, it is not necessary that all duties be eliminated: the suppression of the organizational position as a whole is sufficient.

Moreover, the Court of Cassation has long recognized the legitimacy of dismissal for objective justified reasons even when motivated by the need to improve managerial efficiency or increase profitability, not necessarily linked to a state of crisis. From this perspective, the adoption of technological tools capable of improving efficiency fully falls within the scope of reasons relating to the organization of work.

Innovation, therefore, does not alter the legal prerequisites but changes the context in which they are applied. For companies, this entails the need to properly document reorganization processes and the ways in which the introduction of new technologies affects the structure of corporate functions.

Open issues: redeployment and technological evidence

Another particularly sensitive issue concerns redeployment (repêchage). In the case examined, the Court ruled out the possibility of internal reassignment, noting the absence of available positions and the lack of overlap between the employee’s skills and other roles within the company. In highly specialized sectors, the introduction of algorithmic systems may structurally make redeployment more difficult: the professional role that has been replaced may be so specific that no residual space remains within the organization.

In such contexts, the preliminary phase of organizational analysis becomes increasingly important in order to assess the effects that the introduction of automated tools may have on the structure of tasks and on the possibilities of redeploying personnel. Likewise, proper documentation of reorganization processes becomes essential to demonstrate, in the event of litigation, the actual elimination of the position and the absence of internal employment alternatives.

There is also an additional element that may influence future litigation: the facilitation of the employer’s burden of proof. The replacement of human work with AI systems can be documented through the production of inputs (i.e., prompts) and the corresponding outputs, which may demonstrate the functional equivalence between activities previously performed by the employee and those now assigned to the automated system. This could make it easier to demonstrate the causal link between reorganization and the elimination of the position. This aspect also opens new scenarios in terms of evidence management and the internal governance of AI tools, with potential implications not only in the field of employment law, but also with regard to corporate compliance and the management of technological systems used in production processes.

Conclusions

For the time being, the decision of the Court of Rome follows a path of continuity: AI is a tool, not an autonomous legal category. However, it is evident that the expansion of automation in the service and tertiary sectors will increasingly lead courts—and potentially legislators—to address the boundary between production efficiency and employment protection.

For companies, the real challenge does not lie so much in the adoption of technology itself, but in the ability to integrate innovation into organizational models in compliance with the existing legal framework. This includes, among other aspects, the proper management of corporate reorganizations, the prior assessment of the impact on job duties, and the preparation of adequate documentation to support business decisions.