Sweden: Court Rules on Intrusive Behaviour as Legal Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Author: Karolina Sundqvist

An employee was summarily dismissed from his employment at Samhall, a state-owned company employing people with disabilities, due to his behaviour towards female colleagues. The Labour Court found that higher demands can be placed on Samhall than on other employers as regards measures to remedy shortcomings in the behaviour of employees, provided that the behaviour is related to their disability. The Court concluded that Samhall did not have legal grounds for the summary dismissal, as Samhall did not intervene to make the employee aware of his intrusive behaviour related to his disability.

Samhall, a state-owned company employing people with disabilities, summarily dismissed an employee due to his behaviour towards female employees. The dispute concerned whether Samhall had legal grounds for the summary dismissal or at least objective grounds for dismissal or whether the summary dismissal should be annulled pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

The Court found that the employee’s behaviour towards his female colleagues had been intrusive and perceived as unpleasant. However, with regards to Samhall’s directions from the state to create jobs for people with disabilities, the Court deemed that higher demands can be placed on Samhall than on other employers as regards taking measures to remedy shortcomings in the behaviour of employees if the behaviour is related to their disability. According to the Court, it was highly probable that the behaviour of the employee in question was related to his disability, and that the disability affected his ability to realise how his behaviour had been perceived by others.

The Court found that the behaviour was of such nature that the employer should have intervened through reprimands or other measures, and that the behaviour could have entailed that Samhall had objective grounds for dismissal if it had continued after the employer had intervened and made the employee aware of his errors. As such intervention had not been conducted, the Court concluded that Samhall did not have legal grounds for summary dismissal or objective grounds for dismissal.

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-house Counsel

Higher demands can be placed on a state-owned company employing people with disabilities than on other employers when it comes to taking measures to remedy shortcomings in the behaviour of employees, provided that the behaviour is related to their disability.