Just-Cause Dismissal Overturned in Domestic Violence Case

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

A doctor was fired for cause after she stayed away from work because of death threats from her then-husband. A São Paulo labor court has overturned the dismissal and awarded her R$ 5 mil in moral damages.

Dismissal for cause overturned after absences caused by death threats

The 12th Labor Court of the South Zone Courthouse in São Paulo overturned the for-cause dismissal of a doctor who did not report to work on the days she was being threatened with death by her then-husband. The ruling, issued by Judge Renata Prado de Oliveira, was made public on July 27, 2026. It also ordered the employer to pay R$ 5 mil in moral damages. This is a trial-level decision and may be appealed.

According to the facts described in the case, the doctor began missing work after the threats and the emotional toll they took on her. After an assault, she obtained an emergency protective order under the Maria da Penha Law, Law No. 11.340/2006. The following week, she told the company what had happened and sent in the police report along with her application for the order. Even so, she received a termination letter citing job abandonment.

Dismissal for cause on grounds of job abandonment is one of the harshest penalties in the employment relationship. It strips the employee of advance notice, the penalty on the FGTS (Brazil’s Severance Indemnity Fund), withdrawal of the fund balance, and unemployment insurance. It also leaves a mark on the employment record that often gets in the way of future hiring. For that reason, the labor courts require firm proof of two elements together: a prolonged absence and an intent not to return to the job.

The employer’s argument and the testimony that contradicted it

In its defense, the employer argued that the absences had no formal justification, that the doctor refused to be reassigned to other units, and that she did not follow the company’s internal rules for documenting absences for health reasons. That argument put compliance with bureaucratic procedure above the real reason the employee was away from work.

The oral evidence dismantled that position. The witness the employer itself called confirmed that the company knew about the violence and harassment, and that this was the real reason for the absences. There was, therefore, no doubt about where the doctor was or why she was away.

The witness the employer itself called confirmed that the company knew about the violence and harassment, and that this was the real reason for the absences.

In the judge’s view, terminating the contract in these circumstances violated the duty of objective good faith and the social function of the employment contract. The company had enough information to treat the absences as leave caused by domestic violence, yet it chose the harshest penalty and imposed it on a worker in a vulnerable situation.

What changes in practice

For anyone in a similar situation, the decision reinforces that an absence tied to a threat, an assault, or a protective order is not the same as a lack of interest in the job. Notifying the employer, even a few days after the incident, and presenting the police report or the application for a protective order tends to defeat an abandonment accusation.

• Notice given the following week was accepted as valid, since the violence itself explained the delay.
• Failing to follow the internal rule on medical certificates did not, on its own, justify dismissal for cause.
• Refusing a transfer to another unit was not read as a refusal to work, but as a reaction to a concrete risk.
• Moral damages were treated as presumed, arising from the facts themselves, with no additional proof of suffering required.

For employers, the case is a risk-management warning. When a company knows, by any means, that an absence stems from domestic violence, imposing a for-cause dismissal for abandonment opens the door to having the dismissal overturned and to a moral damages award. Updating internal rules on documenting absences, with an express provision for this scenario, reduces that exposure.

The ruling also brings the case close to other situations in which the employment relationship ends through the employer’s fault, where the worker can take the request to leave to court and claim the amounts owed in a dismissal without cause.

Job abandonment requires intent not to return

Job abandonment is not just a matter of counting days missed. It has an objective element, the continued absence, and a subjective element, the intent to end the contract. Without the second, an absence may warrant a warning or a suspension, but it cannot support the most serious penalty under labor law.

Labor litigation is full of examples that tell the two apart. An employee who is hospitalized, who has an accident far from home, who is wrongfully detained, or who faces a family emergency disappears from work with no intention of breaking the employment relationship. In the case decided here, the doctor stayed in contact, explained what had happened, and handed over official documents, which is conduct inconsistent with someone who means to abandon the job.

The judge’s reasoning followed that line. If the employee went to the police, applied for judicial protection, and then went to the company with the papers in hand, what she was doing was trying to keep her job while her life was at risk, not showing a lack of interest in the contract.

The Maria da Penha Law and a gender perspective in the ruling

The ruling relied on the Maria da Penha Law, which preserves the employment relationship when leaving work is necessary because of domestic violence. The law recognizes that leaving home, changing routines, or temporarily stopping work can be a condition of survival for a threatened woman.

The second basis was the Protocol for Judging with a Gender Perspective issued by the National Council of Justice. The document directs judges to consider structural inequalities when weighing evidence and the parties’ conduct. Applied to this case, it meant assessing the delay in notifying the employer and the lack of a medical certificate in light of the emotional state of someone under a death threat, rather than as simple administrative negligence.

How to document an absence caused by domestic violence

The evidence in this case shows what worked. Four records commonly support a worker’s defense against an abandonment accusation:

• A police report of the threat or assault, with the date and a description of the facts.
• A copy of the application and of the decision granting the protective order.
• Notice to the company by a means that leaves a trail, such as company e-mail or a message with a read receipt.
• Medical or psychological care, when available, with a report describing the emotional condition.

Keeping copies of everything before handing documents to the HR department avoids any dispute over what was or was not received. If the company refuses to log them in, sending them by e-mail solves the proof problem. Coworkers who learned about the incident also carry weight, as the testimony that decided this case shows.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who can be absent from work because of domestic violence?

The protection covers women in situations of domestic and family violence as defined in the Maria da Penha Law, regardless of job title, salary, or length of service. The absence must be connected to the risk the woman faces, such as the period after an assault, time away from home, or days spent on police and court proceedings. There is no requirement that the protective order already have been granted before the first absence, because the urgency of the situation does not always allow events to happen in that order.

Can a for-cause dismissal already on record be reversed, and can I receive severance pay?

Yes. The reversal is requested in the labor courts, and the practical effect is to convert the termination into a dismissal without cause, with advance notice, unpaid balance of salary, prorated vacation pay plus one-third, prorated 13th-month salary, the FGTS penalty and release of the fund balance, along with access to unemployment insurance. When the way the penalty was imposed harms the person’s dignity, a claim for moral damages is added, which is exactly what happened in the doctor’s case, with the amount set at R$ 5 mil.

How should a company act when it learns that an employee is being abused at home?

The first step is to treat the absences as justified leave for as long as the risk lasts, recording the reason confidentially to protect the employee’s privacy. The second is to open a direct line with the HR department and waive the medical certificate requirement when the document presented is a police report or a court protection order. Punishing the absence without examining the context exposes the company to having the dismissal overturned and to paying damages, on top of the wear and tear a lawsuit of this kind causes.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.