Protecting Health or Rights? The Constitutional Court Clarifies: Dismissal Rules for Conditionally Fit Employees

The Constitutional Court of Romania has delivered a landmark ruling through Decision no. 91/2024, reshaping how employers address situations involving conditionally fit employees. This decision reinforces that dismissal on health grounds is not an immediate solution. Instead, it emphasizes the need for proactive workplace adaptations to accommodate employees’ health requirements while safeguarding their rights.

The Court’s Stand on Conditional Fitness

In its decision, the Constitutional Court stated that employers cannot dismiss an employee deemed “conditionally fit” based solely on the justification of protecting their health. Conditional fitness—unlike total physical or mental unfitness—requires tailored workplace adjustments. These adaptations ensure the employee can fulfill their job duties without compromising their well-being.

Employers must abide by the recommendations outlined by occupational health doctors. A “conditionally fit” certificate obliges the employer to implement specific measures, such as modifying workstations or adjusting workflows, provided these changes are feasible. Crucially, employers cannot independently evaluate whether an employee’s condition affects their ability to perform; the occupational health doctor’s assessment is final.

Workplace Adaptations as a Legal Obligation

The Court’s decision sets a high bar for workplace health and safety standards. Adapting work conditions to the employee’s specific needs takes precedence over seeking quick dismissals.

Adjustments might involve redesigning workstations, updating equipment, or altering job roles to ensure tasks align with the employee’s physical or mental capacity.

In concrete, these measures include:

• avoidance of risks;
• identification and assessment of risks that cannot be completely avoided;
• elimination of hazards directly at their source;
• work conditions tailored to individual needs, focusing on ergonomic workstation design, appropriate equipment selection, and improved workflows to reduce monotony, control work pace, and mitigate health impacts;
• adaptation to technological progress;
• substitution of hazardous elements with safer or less dangerous alternatives;
• establishment of a comprehensive prevention strategy that integrates technology, work organization, conditions, social relations, and environmental factors in the workplace;
• prioritization of collective protection measures over individual protection measures;
• provision of clear and effective safety instructions to workers.

Dismissal is only an option when adaptation is objectively impossible or would undermine the core responsibilities of the job. Consider a delivery driver who is no longer medically allowed to drive; in such cases, dismissal may be justified, but only after all alternatives are exhausted.

Decision no. 91/2024 is a reminder that modern workplaces must evolve to prioritize employee health and safety. Employers now have a clear mandate: protecting employees’ health is not about exclusion but about inclusion, adaptation, and respect for professional medical assessments.

This ruling offers an opportunity for businesses to review their policies, strengthen their risk management practices, and foster an inclusive workplace culture that values employees’ well-being. By doing so, companies can ensure compliance while creating a more resilient and adaptive workforce.