Can you be dismissed for walking your dog while on sick leave? Legal key issues in disciplinary dismissal during temporary incapacity

The High Court of Justice of Castilla y León, sitting in Valladolid, has ruled that the disciplinary dismissal of a Mercadona employee was unfair. The employee was on temporary incapacity leave and had been observed, through a private investigator’s report, carrying out various everyday activities on 8 and 9 January 2025. These included walking his dog, picking up its excrement, going to a supermarket, carrying bags, visiting a laundromat and riding a motorcycle.

The judgment, delivered on 9 March 2026 by the Labour Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León, resolved the appeal lodged by the employee against the decision of Labour Court No. 1 of León, which had initially upheld the dismissal as fair.

The employee had been working for Mercadona since 14 December 2010 at the company’s logistics centre in Villadangos del Páramo, León, holding the position of Manager A. According to the established facts, his duties included cleaning machines, rollers, corridors and floors in a 12-degree refrigerated chamber.

The case is particularly striking because the disciplinary dismissal was based, among other facts, on walks with a Yorkshire Terrier, supermarket shopping, visits to a laundromat and motorcycle journeys. However, the underlying legal issue was whether those activities were incompatible with the employee’s sick leave or whether they demonstrated that the temporary incapacity situation had been simulated.

The judgment states that the employee suffered from rheumatoid arthritis. Following a medical examination carried out after a previous discharge from sick leave, several functional limitations were identified: repeatedly squatting down, remaining kneeling for prolonged periods, repetitive or continuous gripping with both hands, and exposure to cold or low temperatures, particularly in refrigerated or frozen chambers.

Subsequently, the employee began a new period of temporary incapacity on 12 December 2024. The company based its termination decision on a private investigator’s report concerning activities carried out on 8 and 9 January 2025.

According to the ruling, the report described activities such as walking the dog, picking up its excrement, making small purchases, carrying shopping or laundry bags, using a laundromat and riding a motorcycle.

The High Court of Justice recalls that carrying out activities during a period of temporary incapacity may only justify disciplinary dismissal when it is proven that such conduct demonstrates the absence of the disabling condition or when the activities are clearly incompatible with the medical condition and may delay or prevent the employee’s recovery.

In this case, the Court considered that the observed activities were ordinary activities of daily life. The judgment expressly refers to walking the dog, making small purchases, carrying light bags, visiting a laundromat and riding a motorcycle for short journeys.

According to the Court, those actions did not, in themselves, allow the conclusion that the employee had simulated the temporary incapacity situation or that he was carrying out efforts incompatible with his medically documented limitations. The Chamber stressed that the medical restrictions were linked to specific activities associated with the employee’s job duties, but did not amount to an absolute prohibition on walking, occasional bending, handling objects sporadically or engaging in low-intensity daily activities.

In addition, the judgment notes that there was no evidence that the employee had been prescribed absolute rest or that the observed activities could negatively interfere with his recovery.

The employee also sought a declaration that the dismissal was null and void, but this claim was rejected. The Court reasoned that the mere fact of being on temporary incapacity leave does not automatically render a dismissal null and void. Instead, it must be assessed whether the employer’s decision was motivated by the employee’s illness or health condition.

In this case, although the Chamber disagreed with the legal assessment that led to the disciplinary dismissal, it considered that the company had acted on the basis of an identifiable disciplinary cause: the private investigator’s report and the activities described therein. Consequently, the Court found insufficient evidence that the employer’s decision had been motivated by discriminatory reasons linked to the employee’s illness.

As a result, the dismissal was declared unfair, but not null and void.

The High Court of Justice of Castilla y León upheld the subsidiary claim in the employee’s appeal, overturned the first-instance judgment and declared the dismissal unfair. The company was ordered to choose between reinstating the employee under the same conditions that applied before the dismissal, with payment of any accrued back pay where appropriate, or compensating him in the amount of €39,845.25.

The ruling leaves a particularly relevant message for both employers and employees: being on sick leave does not necessarily mean remaining completely inactive or refraining from all everyday activities. The key issue is the assessment of the specific illness, the documented medical limitations, the employee’s job duties and whether the activities carried out are incompatible with recovery or reveal a simulation of the sick leave situation.

In disciplinary dismissal cases, it is not sufficient for the employer merely to establish that certain conduct took place during a period of temporary incapacity. The conduct must be serious enough to amount to a serious and culpable breach of contractual obligations. In this case, the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León considered that the observed activities did not reach that threshold of seriousness.

At ILIA ETL GLOBAL, we provide labour law advice to both companies and employees, analysing each case individually and taking into account the most recent developments in employment case law.