Maciej Mioduszewski
Maciej Mioduszewski supports employers across the broad areas of labour law and social insurance. He advises clients from various sectors of the economy, mainly on individual and procedural labour law.
He specialises in judicial disputes. He prepares strategies, drafts pleadings, and represents clients at all stages of proceedings. He represents employers in disputes over social insurance coverage and the amounts of contributions, determination of employment relationships, pay (including overtime), mobbing, and appeals against termination notices, amending notices, and disciplinary termination of employment.
He supports employers during inspections and disputes involving the Social Insurance Institution and the State Labour Inspectorate, and in internal investigations. He drafts employment contracts, civil-law contracts, and documentation related to termination of employment.
He takes part in employment law aspects of due diligence, and drafts internal documentation and legal opinions on employment matters.
It is always advisable to comprehensively assess the risks before going ahead with terminating an employment contract. A reason which, at first glance, seems sufficient for dismissing an employee will not always be justified from a legal perspective. Generally, the law requires a specific reason for terminating an employment contract: its absence, or incorrect wording, opens the way for the employee to pursue claims in court.
There is no shortage of disputes concerning dismissals. The Ministry of Justice’s statistics show that they constitute the second largest category, by number, of all cases brought by employees. In the first half of 2025, 8,927 cases were recorded concerning the validity of termination notices and 5,864 cases involving disciplinary dismissals. In the whole of 2024, there were 10,599 and 7,152 such cases respectively, whereas 9,133 and 6,627 in 2023.
According to established case law, the reason for termination must be genuine, specific, comprehensible, current and valid (see Supreme Court resolution of 27 June 1985, III PZP 10/85).