The Supreme Court has made it clear that neither companies nor administrations can leave temporary workers without the compensation for permanent disability that permanent staff do receive. The court points out that having a temporary contract is no excuse for cutting back on these social improvements and calls this practice illegal discrimination, totally contrary to the principle of equality and European regulations.
The ruling explains that treating permanent and temporary workers differently in this regard collides head-on with European Directive 1999/70/EC and the Workers’ Statute. The idea supported by the court is that if a worker cannot continue working because he or she is recognized as permanently disabled, this damage is the same whether the contract is temporary or indefinite. Therefore, if a permanent employee is entitled to that compensation, a temporary employee in the same situation must receive the same.
This notice from the Supreme Court comes with ruling 153/2026 (Roj: STS 713/2026, available on the Judiciary portal), following the case of Irene, an employee of the Community of Madrid who worked as a service assistant with an interim contract. When in 2022 they recognized his total permanent disability, the Administration refused to pay him the 15,500 euros in compensation that his agreement stated, alleging that he was not permanent staff.
In the first instance, the Social Court rejected his claim, but later, the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid agreed with him, seeing the discrimination clearly. The Community of Madrid, not being satisfied, decided to go to the Supreme Court, trying to rely on previous rulings. However, the High Court agrees with the worker, so she has the right to collect compensation.
Same job, same rights
The Supreme Court differentiates what is the natural purpose of a temporary contract from the rights that arise in the event of a serious health problem. During the process, the Community of Madrid tried to justify itself by saying that, in the case of permanent workers, the compensation compensated for losing a long-term career, while the contract of an interim was going to end soon anyway.
The Court not only denies this, but also rejects the idea that paying a temporary worker constitutes “unjust enrichment.” In its ruling, it explains that making this distinction “violates the principle of equality before the law between temporary and permanent workers.”
The ruling ends by saying that “this difference between the plaintiff and a permanent worker lacks any objective, reasonable and proportionate justification.” By losing their job for health reasons, “both are incapable of exercising their usual profession” and, consequently, “the situation and damages of both workers are exactly the same.”
In this way, the worker will have the right to compensation for permanent disability set at 15,500 euros.