Working hundreds of kilometers from a parent with a disability and being denied a transfer for company reasons. A situation that concerns numerous Italian families and on which an important ruling comes from Court of Appeal of Rome. With a ruling dated 14 October 2026, the judges recognized the right of a Poste Italiane employee to be transferred close to his disabled mother, despite a contractual obligation that prevented him from changing headquarters within three years.
The decision brings the protections provided by the law back to the center of attention Law 104in particular the right of workers who assist family members with serious disabilities to choose, when possible, a workplace close to the person to be assisted. A principle that can prevail over the internal provisions of companies, but which does not entail an automatic right to transfer.
Law 104, the case of the employee transferred from Varese to Messina
The matter concerns a Poste Italiane worker employed in Varese, who had asked to be able to return to Sicily to assist his disabled mother, resident in the Messina area.
The company had rejected the request by referring to a three-year commitment to stay in the place of assignment. According to internal provisions, the employee could not participate in the mobility procedures before three years had passed. He was also denied the priority he requested as a caregiver.
The worker then decided to turn to justice. At first instance, the Court of Rome rejected the appeal, recognizing the validity of the company’s position. The situation changed with the appeal judgment.
The Court of Appeal of Rome, with the ruling of 14 October 2026, overturned the decision, recognizing the right to transfer and ordering that Poste Italiane assign the employee as a priority to an office in the Municipality of Messina or, alternatively, in the province.
The company was also sentenced to pay the legal costs of the two levels of judgement, quantified as 7,200 eurosin addition to the accessories provided.
What does Law 104 provide for the transfer of workers
The regulatory reference is thearticle 33, paragraph 5, of Law 104 of 1992which recognizes that the worker who assists a person with a serious disability has the right to choose, where possible, the workplace closest to the family member’s home.
The provision applies to public and private sector employees who meet the requirements established by law.
The law not only protects the possibility of taking advantage of paid leave, but also the need to make assistance concretely possible. Geographic proximity can in fact become essential when the family member needs care, accompaniment or support in daily life.
The central point is the relationship between the organizational needs of the employer and the rights recognized by disability legislation.
The Roman ruling highlights that a corporate constraint to remain at the headquarters cannot be considered, alone, a sufficient reason to exclude the protections provided by Law 104.
Can the company refuse the transfer with Law 104?
The answer is yes, but the refusal must be evaluated in light of the conditions established by law and the concrete circumstances.
Article 33 in fact contains a fundamental expression: «where possible». This means that the worker cannot automatically request a transfer to any location, regardless of the organizational needs of the company.
The request must be examined considering the situation of the supported family member, the requirements to benefit from the protection and the actual possibility of assigning the employee to a closer location.
The company can therefore oppose concrete organizational needs, but the simple reference to an internal regulation or a minimum period of stay is not necessarily sufficient to justify the refusal.
The decision of the Court of Appeal of Rome does not introduce a new law nor eliminate all constraints on professional mobility. Rather, it confirms the need to evaluate transfer requests in light of the protection granted to family members of people with disabilities.
Who can request a transfer to assist a disabled family member
To benefit from the provisions of article 33, paragraph 5, specific requirements must be respected.
The assisted person must be in one situation of serious disability recognized pursuant to article 3, paragraph 3, of Law 104. A generic condition of disability or the simple recognition of Law 104 without the assessment of the severity required by the law is therefore not sufficient.
The worker must also be among the family members or other subjects eligible for protection and effectively provide assistance to the person concerned.
The possibility of transfer must be distinguished from the three days of monthly paid leave: these are two protections provided for by the same legislation, but with different conditions and methods of application.
How to ask for the transfer and what to do if the company says no
The worker who intends to get closer to the assisted person can submit a formal request to the employer, recalling article 33, paragraph 5, of Law 104.
It is advisable to accompany the application with the documentation relating to the recognition of the serious disability and with the elements necessary to demonstrate the family relationship, the assistance needs and the location for which the transfer is requested.
If the answer is no, it is important to examine the reasons provided by the company. A refusal based exclusively on an internal rule could in fact be contestable, especially when the worker’s situation is not adequately assessed.
Before taking legal action it is possible to contact a trade union or a professional specialized in labor law to verify the existence of the requirements and any possibilities for appeal.
What changes after the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Rome
The case of the Poste Italiane employee represents a significant reference for those who find themselves having to reconcile a job far from home with the need to assist a parent or other family member with a serious disability.
The ruling does not make the transfer automatic and does not constitute a legislative change valid without distinction for all workers. But it shows that company rules on mobility cannot be applied without considering the rights recognized by Law 104.
For caregivers, the most important consequence is that an employer’s denial does not necessarily close the matter. When the conditions established by the law are met, the request for an approach may be subjected to a judicial evaluation, even in the presence of internal contractual or organizational constraints.
