A 22-year-old office worker in Spain has been officially dismissed for persistent misconduct, not for poor performance, but for the highly unusual reason of arriving at her workplace habitually and excessively early a practice she continued despite repeated formal warnings.
The employee was reportedly fired for “serious misconduct” after she repeatedly ignored instructions to stop arriving at her office between 6:45 am and 7:00 am, a full 40 minutes ahead of her mandated 7:30 am start time.
According to her employer, the issue was not the punctuality itself, but the employee’s stubborn refusal to adhere to clear workplace directives. Her boss argued that her relentless early-bird routine did not contribute to the company’s productivity but constituted blatant insubordination. The employee, who reportedly racked up 19 early arrivals even after receiving multiple verbal and written warnings, was also accused of trying to log into the company app before reaching the office on some days.
The case was taken to the Social Court of Alicante after the woman insisted her dismissal was unjustified. However, the court ruled in favour of the company.
In its judgment, the court stressed that the core issue was not the worker’s “excessive punctuality,” but her consistent and willful refusal to obey workplace rules a serious breach under Article 54 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute. The ruling noted that the employee had persisted in her routine even after specific instructions were issued to regulate access and work hours.
The court also considered a separate breach of trust, where the employee was accused of selling a used company car battery without permission. This incident was said to have contributed to a proven pattern of disloyalty and disregard for company policy.
The case has ignited a lively debate on social media, with many users expressing confusion and disbelief that an employee could be terminated for being too early.
However, employment experts highlight that companies are legally entitled to enforce strict access and clock-in rules, particularly when they relate to health and safety, security protocols, or simply managing the building’s operational hours. Once those rules are clearly communicated, continued disregard for them can be treated as insubordination.
The former employee retains the option to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Valencia, but the current judgment upholding the dismissal stands. The incident follows a separate viral case earlier this year involving a Florida woman who was rescinded an employment offer after failing to show up on the wrong start date provided in her offer email, sparking similar online discussions about rigidity in hiring processes.
