Moral damages in employment relationships have been the subject of constant debate in the Labor Courts. As a result, the Superior Labor Court (“TST”) has consolidated important understandings, in repetitive appeal proceedings, regarding situations in which moral damage is presumed, known as damage in re ipsa.

When the TST rules on issues in repetitive appeal proceedings, the aim is to standardize case law, so that, once the legal thesis is established, it must be followed by all labor judges and courts in identical cases.

In practical terms, this means that, when facing a situation already settled by the TST in a repetitive appeal, the judge cannot decide otherwise.

For this reason, companies urgently need to adapt their internal practices immediately, since the chances of success in a lawsuit involving a matter already consolidated in a repetitive appeal become very slim.

A common example is when a company prevents an employee from returning after being cleared by the social security system, preventing them from resuming their duties and ensuring their livelihood through the payment of wages. For the Superior Court, under Topic 88, the mere act of obstructing the employee’s return is already considered harmful, regardless of additional proof of damage, and gives rise to compensation.

This development in case law shows the urgent need for companies to adopt preventive and structured practices to avoid convictions.

On the other hand, the TST has also established its understanding of situations in which moral damage is not presumed and therefore depends on actual proof of harm.

In other words, there are some situations in which the Court has held that their occurrence does not automatically give rise to moral damages, and proof is still required. For example, late payment of severance amounts does not automatically give rise to moral damages, according to Topic 143.

Also by way of example, in cases where recognition of an employment relationship is sought and the employee claims compensation for moral damages due to the lack of registration in the Employment Record Book (CTPS), the Court holds that the embarrassment or harm suffered must be proven, according to IRR Topic No. 60. 

Therefore, the reasoning applied is that it is essential to show that the employee suffered concrete consequences going beyond mere contractual non-performance. This distinction shows that not every failure by the employer translates into an offense to honor or dignity, but that certain behaviors, due to their seriousness, trigger immediate liability.

Also noteworthy is the understanding established by the TST in Topic 58, which analyzed the lawfulness of searches carried out in the workplace. The Court held that personal searches of employees’ bags and belongings, as long as they are carried out in a general, impersonal manner, without physical contact or exposure of privacy, do not violate human dignity and therefore do not give rise to a duty to compensate for moral damages.

However, care is needed, because when searches are carried out in an abusive, selective or humiliating manner, presumed moral damage is established, and proof of actual harm is unnecessary. This reinforces the importance of companies adopting clear and respectful protocols in their inspection routines.

This overview shows that business management must pay attention not only to the rules expressly set out in the CLT and in the Regulatory Standards (NRs), but also to the understandings consolidated by the TST. In many situations, the risk of conviction arises from simple conduct, as described above, which could be avoided with proper guidance and preventive monitoring.

Preventive action is therefore the best way to reduce labor liabilities. Having specialized legal advice allows business owners to identify critical points, adjust internal procedures and ensure greater certainty in employment relationships.

A lawsuit, in addition to being costly, directly affects the company’s reputation not only in the labor market, but also in its business relationships, whereas prevention proves to be strategic and less costly.

In the current scenario, in which case law has been consolidated with binding force, corporate awareness is essential. Protecting workers’ dignity must go hand in hand with the company’s legal certainty, and this can only be achieved through a commitment to responsible practices and ongoing legal advice.