Appeals court voids health-based dismissal of three Humana sorters

Three long-serving sorters at UAB Humana LTTeismai, dismissed on 11 August 2025Teismai because a medical examination found they could work only with restrictionsTeismai, were dismissed unlawfullyTeismai. The Vilnius Regional Court held on 22 September 2026Teismai that limits on lifting, bending and repetitive movements did not mean the women could not do sorter workTeismai, and that the employer had not shown the workplace could not be adaptedTeismai.

The three women had worked as sorters of second-hand clothing and textiles since 2012, 2016 and 2012. After extraordinary health examinations on 8 August 2025Teismai, the occupational physician found each could work but with restrictionsTeismai: no lifting over 10 kgTeismai, and limits on repetitive hand movements, strain, forced torso bending and work–rest regimeTeismai, with hearing protection in noise. The employer terminated all three contracts under Article 60(1)(4) of the Darbo kodeksasTeismai — termination without the parties' will where the employee, in the healthcare institution's opinion, can no longer hold the post or do the work and refuses transfer, or no suitable post exists. The labour disputes commission and the first-instance court upheld the dismissals; the appellate court reversedTeismai.

The decisive point was the difference between a restriction and a prohibition. The physician's opinions never barred the women from sorter workTeismai; they said the named movements should be limited. The court found no evidence that lifting over 10 kg was actually part of the jobTeismai — the plaintiffs testified bundles weighed 3–5 kg and heavier sacks were carried by others — and no measurement of how intense the bending or the repetitive movements really were at the sorting lineTeismai. The employer's own risk assessment had rated repeated torso bending at the sorter workplace as acceptableTeismai, and the court held that identifying a risk factor, without assessing its intensity against the actual duties, cannot establish inability to workTeismai.

Nor had anything medically changed. No new illnesses were found at the August 2025 examinationsTeismai, the short-term incapacities that triggered the referrals were not shown to be work-related, and two of the women had carried similar restrictions since earlier examinations without any complaint about their performance. The court also rejected the argument that adaptation was impossible: after the dismissals, from September 2025, the employer introduced workplace exercise, a massage room and physiotherapy services — measures the court read as proof that work could have been organised to respect the restrictions instead of terminating the contractsTeismai.

Because the plaintiffs did not seek reinstatementTeismai, the contracts are deemed terminated by the court decision from the date it enters into forceTeismai. The employer must pay average wages for forced absence for one year — 16,967.16 Eur, 16,435.44 Eur and 17,531.64 Eur respectively before taxTeismai — plus tenure-based compensation of six, four and six average monthly wages (8,483.58 Eur, 5,478.48 Eur and 8,765.82 Eur)TeismaiTeismaiTeismai, 1,000 Eur each for non-pecuniary damage, and 1,815 Eur each in first-instance legal costs plus 726 Eur each on appeal. Legal basis: Decision No e2A-2256-925/2026 of 22 September 2026 of the Vilniaus apygardos teismas, applying Articles 60(1)(4), 158, 217 and 218 of the Darbo kodeksas.