How long your medical period is depends on your years of service, not on how serious your illness is. This sentence was omitted by most of the articles shared over the past two days, yet it happens to be the most important point in this case.
From yesterday to today, the news about a “33-year-old top salesperson diagnosed with late-stage stomach cancer and fired” has been rolling across every platform. The headlines are all punchy, the emotions dialed to max. I didn’t share it directly—first I sorted through the facts in the public reports, then pulled out the relevant source documents and cross-checked them line by line (the Labor Contract Law, Lao Bu Fa [1994] No. 479, Lao Bu Fa [1995] No. 236, Lao Bu Fa [1994] No. 481), and finally recalculated the two figures in the ruling myself.
Conclusion up front, three sentences:
- The company terminated the contract during the medical period—this red line was indeed crossed, and the arbitration finding of unlawful termination is not in dispute.
- But the statement “for special diseases like cancer, practice universally applies a medical period of no less than 24 months” overstates things. The source rules don’t say that. Interestingly, even after crossing out this error, the conclusion still holds—unlawful termination doesn’t need to rely on exaggerating the medical period length.
- The most eye-catching 94K out of the 110K award has the thinnest legal basis: the source document was repealed in December 2017. This is probably also the company’s strongest ground when it filed suit.
Pinning Down the Facts First
All information below comes from public reports (Sohu account “Fa Lin Lawyers,” NetEase News, Tencent News, Weibo topics). The individual’s name is a pseudonym; the company named in reports is “Guanyuan Data Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Branch.” This ruling has not yet taken effect—the company has filed suit in court, and the final facts will be determined by the court’s judgment.
Timeline as reported:
- Joined in January 2026, sales position, six-month probation, monthly salary 16,000 RMB; had been doing sales in the Guangzhou-Shenzhen area for nearly ten years prior;
- Completed new-hire training ahead of schedule after joining, signed an annual sales target responsibility agreement with a contract-value target of 1.6 million;
- May 20: went for a gastroscopy due to abdominal bloating, diagnosed with late-stage stomach cancer; immediately informed direct supervisor and requested leave, company approved fifteen days of sick leave;
- Returned to the company after sick leave ended, proposed handling things according to the employee medical-period regulations; HR and the supervisor’s response was “performance below target”;
- June 16: company delivered a “Notice of Labor Contract Termination” via WeChat;
- September 11: the Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Committee of Tianhe District, Guangzhou ruled: unlawful termination established, ordered payment of 15,700+ RMB in compensation + 94,000+ RMB in medical subsidy, totaling approximately 110,000 RMB;
- Company disagrees, has filed suit. The individual’s public statement is “that’s life-saving money”; doctors said if the prognosis is poor, remaining time is approximately ten months; the company’s position is “his output didn’t meet targets.”
Let me be clear: this isn’t a story that can be written as “bad company + good employee.” Its real substance lies in evidence and procedure—which is also the angle I’m most comfortable with as someone who deals with logs and timestamps every day.
Article 42 Is the Red Line, but the Company Didn’t Cross It That Way
Article 42, Item (3) of the Labor Contract Law: Where an employee is ill or has sustained a non-work-related injury and is within the prescribed medical period, the employer shall not terminate the labor contract pursuant to Articles 40 or 41 of this Law.
This provision has an easily overlooked limitation: it only blocks Article 40 (no-fault termination: unable to work after medical period expires, major change in objective circumstances, inability to perform the job) and Article 41 (economic layoffs). It does not block Article 39—probationary period failure to meet hiring conditions, serious disciplinary violations, etc. can still result in termination, without Article 42 protection.
So the company’s legal strategy this time was actually to circumvent Article 42: instead of saying “medical period expired and unable to work” (which would walk right into the crosshairs), they said “failed to meet hiring conditions during probation / performance below target.” The direction was correct.
Where did it fall apart? They couldn’t prove the “hiring conditions” part.
Why Arbitration Rejected “Performance Below Target”: A Timestamp Problem
According to reports, several facts established by the arbitration committee are devastating:
- The company’s assessment period was January 14 to July 13; termination occurred on June 16—the period hadn’t even concluded when the “unqualified” verdict was issued prematurely;
- All negative scores and assessment conclusions were generated after his diagnosis and sick leave;
- The company’s core evidence was a performance rating form, not a specialized assessment standard for probationary-period confirmation;
- The company did not provide a reasonable period for job improvement and capability development, nor did it prove that both parties had agreed in advance on explicit hiring conditions.
Let me translate that into my language: the timestamps on this evidence all postdate the claimed failure event—conclusion first, then backfill the data points. And in this type of dispute, the burden of proof already falls on the employer: Article 6 of the Law on Mediation and Arbitration of Labor Disputes provides that where evidence related to the dispute is in the employer’s possession and management, the employer shall provide it; Article 44 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation (I) on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Labor Dispute Cases is even more direct: labor disputes arising from decisions by the employer to expel, remove, dismiss, or terminate a labor contract shall be subject to the employer’s burden of proof.
In other words, the evidence chain of “hiring conditions agreed upon at onboarding + objective assessment during probation proving failure to meet them”—if any link is missing written documentation, the termination doesn’t stand. When the company sent the notice on June 16, they most likely had only two facts in hand: he has cancer, and he’s not at work.
One more thing many articles didn’t mention: Article 21 of the Labor Contract Law also requires that when an employer terminates a labor contract during the probationary period, it must explain the reasons to the employee.
I Broke Down That 110K and Recalculated
Both figures can be derived from the statutory formulas, which raises my confidence in the reported data by a notch.
Compensation of 15,700 RMB. Article 47 calculates economic compensation: one month’s salary for each full year of service, six months or more but less than one year counts as one year, less than six months gets half a month’s salary. Article 87 adds: unlawful termination pays double the economic compensation standard (the commonly referenced “2N”). He worked less than six months at this company, so economic compensation is half a month’s salary; doubled equals one full month. Monthly salary 16,000, so 2N is approximately 16,000—the ruling gave 15,700+, which checks out (Article 47’s “monthly salary” is calculated as the average earned salary over the twelve months preceding termination; for less than twelve months, it’s the average over the actual period, so it won’t necessarily equal the contractual 16,000).
Many people see “top salesperson fired for cancer, only compensated 16,000” and start cursing—that’s conflating two payments into one. The real bulk is the second item.
Medical subsidy of 94,000 RMB. This number is also clean: 94,000 ÷ 16,000 ≈ 5.9, essentially the “six months’ salary” tier. Its source is discussed in the next section.
Then there’s the crueller layer of arithmetic: the price of unlawful termination is 16,000 plus 94,000, totaling approximately 110,000—while the annual sales target he alone carried was 1.6 million. This comparison is the most share-worthy part of this news story—not “the law severely punished an unscrupulous company,” but rather unlawful termination simply isn’t worth more than this. To actually create a constraint, what matters isn’t the individual case compensation amount—it’s the medical-period procedural gate itself.
Two Places Where the Coverage Overstates Things
1. Cancer Does Not Automatically Mean a 24-Month Medical Period
Several articles contain this sentence (in essence): for special diseases like cancer, mental illness, and paralysis, practice universally applies no less than 24 months. I checked the source texts—the rules span two documents.
The one that sets length is Article 3 of the former Ministry of Labor’s “Regulations on Medical Periods for Enterprise Employees Who Are Ill or Have Sustained Non-Work-Related Injuries” (Lao Bu Fa [1994] No. 479): based on the individual’s actual total years of work and years of service at the current employer, a medical period of three to twenty-four months is granted—actual work years under ten: under five years at current employer gets three months, five years or more gets six months; actual work years ten or more: starting from six months, increasing by years at current employer (five to ten years: nine months; ten to fifteen years: twelve months; fifteen to twenty years: eighteen months; twenty years or more: twenty-four months).
The word “cancer” appears in a different document: the Ministry of Labor’s “Notice on Implementing the ‘Regulations on Medical Periods for Enterprise Employees Who Are Ill or Have Sustained Non-Work-Related Injuries’” (Lao Bu Fa [1995] No. 236): for employees suffering from certain special diseases (such as cancer, mental illness, paralysis, etc.), if they have not recovered within twenty-four months, the medical period may be appropriately extended with the approval of the enterprise and the labor administrative department.
Look at the relationship between these two sentences: No. 479 sets the length, No. 236 sets “how to extend if not cured when it expires.” That sentence in No. 236 is an extension procedure, not “just get diagnosed with cancer and you directly get 24 months”—and the extension still requires approval. Different localities indeed have two approaches regarding whether special diseases automatically get 24 months, but this cannot be written as “universally no less than 24 months.”
So what’s Li Yu’s actual medical period? Reports say he’d been doing sales for nearly ten years and joined the new company in January this year. Under the least favorable classification—actual work years under ten, years at current employer under five—the medical period is three months, not twenty-four months.
The conclusion doesn’t change at all. Because the medical period is calculated based on cumulative sick leave within the period (No. 479, Article 4: a three-month medical period is calculated based on cumulative sick leave within six months). He was diagnosed on May 20 and terminated on June 16; in between, only fifteen days of sick leave were approved—cumulative sick leave doesn’t even reach one-sixth of three months.
This is the value of reading the source text all the way through: the media’s “24 months” is wrong, but even under the most conservative three-month interpretation, he was still within the medical period when terminated—the red-line finding is unaffected by this error. Conversely, if someone actually believed “cancer = 24 months” and took extended sick leave three months into a new job, they could very well miscalculate their protection window—that’s where the real damage would occur.
2. The Basis for the Medical Subsidy Was Repealed in December 2017
In the previous section I calculated that 94,000 is approximately six months’ salary. This “six months’ salary” tier doesn’t come from the Labor Contract Law—the Labor Contract Law does not contain the term “medical subsidy” anywhere in its full text.
Its original source is Article 6 of the former Ministry of Labor’s “Measures for Economic Compensation for Violation and Termination of Labor Contracts” (Lao Bu Fa [1994] No. 481): where an employee is ill or has sustained a non-work-related injury, and the labor appraisal committee confirms they cannot perform their original job nor any re-assigned job, resulting in termination of the labor contract, in addition to economic compensation based on years of service, a medical subsidy of no less than six months’ salary shall also be paid; for serious illness, the increase shall be no less than 50% of the medical subsidy; for terminal illness, no less than 100%.
The problem is: Document No. 481 was listed in the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security’s fifth batch of documents for cleanup and repealed in December 2017. Xinhua Net specifically reported on the impact of this repeal on workers and enterprises at the time. After the repeal, there is no unified explicit national-level basis for “medical subsidy”—remaining support is scattered across local regulations and individual still-valid old documents, with significant divergence in adjudication approaches—Beijing, Guangdong, and other regions each have their own practical interpretations, with cases both supporting and rejecting such claims. This has been a topic discussed in labor law circles from 2017 to today, with firms like Global Law Office, King & Wood Mallesons, and Jun He all publishing dedicated analyses.
So my inference is that the company’s main attack point when filing suit is probably not the 15,700 but this 94,000: an award item whose basis document has already been repealed, accounting for over 80% of the total. This layer of contrast is something virtually none of the shared articles mention. Note: this is only my inference, not a prediction of the case outcome. Precisely because of this, if this case reaches second instance it’s worth watching—it could become a local sample case for “how medical subsidies are handled after the repeal of Document No. 481.”
Six Practical Points for Working People
Setting emotions aside, here’s what’s actionable:
- Get “hiring conditions” in writing with your signature at onboarding. This is the only legal entry point for probationary termination. If the company can’t produce hiring conditions you confirmed, firing you during probation is very hard to sustain; conversely, you should also know whether this document actually exists.
- Upon diagnosis of a serious illness, the first thing to do is submit written leave + diagnostic certificate—preserve the timestamps. The medical period is calculated from sick leave time; saying it verbally or mentioning it on WeChat is nothing compared to having a timestamped record in the HR system.
- Don’t rush to sign a “mutual agreement termination.” Once signed, it becomes Article 36—medical-period protection and 2N all go to zero, leaving only whatever’s in the agreement.
- Calculate your own medical period duration. The formula is in Article 3 of No. 479—not “serious illness = 24 months.” Note that “actual total years of work” includes previous employers; don’t calculate based only on your current company.
- The labor arbitration statute of limitations is one year, counting from the day you knew your rights were infringed. The day you receive the termination notice is the starting point.
- When filing, claim both items. The 2N compensation is based on years of service and the amount might be laughably small; the medical subsidy (if your locality supports it) is the bulk when dealing with serious illness—it relies on local interpretations rather than the Labor Contract Law. Only claiming one item is a common omission.
Let me also say something from the company’s side, because it’s useful for me as someone who manages people: if you want to terminate under Article 39 during probation, the evidence must have been created before the termination decision, and must prove that hiring conditions were communicated in advance. Assessment forms backfilled after the fact are not only useless in arbitration—they’ll actually serve as counter-evidence of the termination’s true motivation. If you truly need to reach lawful termination, honestly follow the Article 40 procedure: first assess whether the employee can perform the original role, then arrange an alternative position, conduct a labor capacity appraisal if necessary, provide thirty days’ written notice or pay one additional month’s salary. Procedure isn’t formalism—procedure is the only thing you’ll have when the time comes.
Final Thoughts
I don’t usually write about labor law cases—I’m not a professional in this field, and getting one character wrong means misleading people. I’m willing to write this time because it has a symptom I recognize: emotions running high, nobody fact-checking at the factual level. Stars aren’t a quality metric, and compensation amounts aren’t a justice metric. Behind those two numbers that check out arithmetically is a person with probably about ten months left, continuing to litigate against a former employer over a provision derived from an already-repealed document.
The real lesson isn’t a slogan like “people aren’t consumables.” It’s this: in an institutional reality where the medical period is three months and unlawful termination is only worth 16,000, what employees can rely on has never been the company’s goodwill—it’s how much evidence they’ve preserved; what companies can rely on isn’t their legal team’s cleverness—it’s whether the procedures were followed completely.
The law does the arithmetic clearly. The part that can’t be calculated—that’s what this news story is really about.
Facts and sources for this article: Case information is compiled from public reports (Sohu account “Fa Lin Lawyers,” NetEase News, Tencent News, Weibo topics); the individual uses a pseudonym. The ruling was issued by the Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Committee of Tianhe District, Guangzhou on September 11, 2026; the company has filed suit, the ruling has not yet taken effect, and the court’s judgment will be final. The amount breakdown and reconciliation against “six months’ salary” and “one month’s salary” in this article are my own calculations, used to verify data consistency—they do not represent the ruling’s original text. Legal provisions and document numbers are taken from the public regulatory database; specific application is subject to currently effective texts; regional variations in medical period length and medical subsidy are particularly large. The author is not a legal practitioner; this article does not constitute legal advice. For actual disputes, please consult a licensed attorney or your local human resources and social security department.
评论
0 条评论