A Madrid High Court ruling dated October 8, 2026, reportedly concerned a screenwriter’s appeal after her dismissal in an ERE, Spain’s collective redundancy process. Her dismissal letter did not cite AI. A separate dismissal letter that did cite AI, involving a 3D modeler, was not appealed and was not reviewed by the Madrid court.
What the Madrid appeal covered
The distinction is central to the case: the appeal concerned the screenwriter, not the 3D modeler whose dismissal letter mentioned AI. The two workers’ dismissals followed the same collective redundancy, but the Madrid court reviewed only the screenwriter’s appeal. Judgment 864/2026 is dated October 8, 2026.
Why a separate Bilbao dismissal was ruled unfair
In a separate case, GHI Hornos Industriales S.L. dismissed mechanical draftsman Carlos María on October 31, 2025. The company cited economic, productive, technical and organizational grounds, including a digital transformation plan involving Model Based Definition (MBD) and AI. On July 6, 2026, the Tribunal de Instancia de Bilbao declared the dismissal unfair in Judgment 252/2026.
The judge found that GHI had not substantiated its stated grounds. Testimony indicated that the MBD tool was not in extensive use; one witness had received training but had not used it in their work. A technical report dated June 2026 came seven months after María’s dismissal and could not justify it beforehand. The judgment also cited internal preparation documents dated August 27, 2025, which referred to workers’ “characteristics and attitudes,” and treated the claimed development of AI tools as a pretext for eliminating the position.
The ruling ordered GHI to choose between reinstating María and paying an additional €5,877.71, after deducting the €6,452.85 in dismissal compensation already paid from the stated total of €12,330.56.
