She was reportedly absent for the whole lot of her first 10 years on the faculty.
A secondary faculty instructor, who was fired after it got here to gentle that she had been absent for 20 years of her 24-year-long profession, has defended herself.
Cinzia Paolina De Lio taught at a faculty close to Venice, Italy, and reportedly used a mixture of sick depart, vacation time and permits to attend conferences to keep away from giving classes.
Remarkably, she managed to get away with this tactic for a staggering twenty years.
De Lio was initially sacked in 2017 after prompting complaints for being “unprepared” and “inattentive” when she returned to work for 4 months a few years earlier.
However she took the dismissal to courtroom, and the next yr a decide in Venice ordered that she be reinstated to her function.
The training minister, Sad with the choice, launched a counter-appeal, which went to Italy’s highest courtroom, the Supreme Courtroom of Cassation.
Final week, the courtroom reversed the choice to reinstate De Lio, labelling the twenty years of absence as an indication of “everlasting and absolute ineptitude.”
Hitting out on the ruling, the historical past and philosophy instructor vowed to inform her aspect of the story and mentioned she had paperwork to disprove the concept she had been absent for 20 years.
“Sorry, however proper now I’m on the seaside,” she informed Repubblica newspaper.
“I’ll reconstruct the reality of the details of this totally distinctive and surreal story.
“I don’t reply questions from journalists thrown round that wouldn’t do justice to the reality of my story.”
Within the Courtroom of Cassation case, the minister had argued that De Lio had been absent from the classroom for 20 of her 24-year-long profession – together with the whole lot of her first 10 years.
The BBC stories that within the following 14 years, her absences had been attributed to illness, private or household causes.
When she did finally return to the classroom in 2015, college students complained about her “random and improvised” method of marking, lack of preparedness and failure to convey textbooks to classes.
De Lio defended herself in courtroom by arguing that she had the precise to “freedom of instructing.”
The courtroom rejected this, arguing it was the instructor’s accountability to ensure college students’ proper to check.