The 2nd Panel of the Superior Labor Court (TST) recognized as discriminatory the dismissal of an Avon Cosmeticos Ltda. manager two months after she returned from leave for depression and ordered payment of double wages.
The manager stated that she suffered from recurrent depressive disorder associated with occupational stress, a condition supported by medical documents and requiring continuous use of controlled medication.
She said that, after returning from a two-month leave, she was transferred to another department with a salary reduction and placed in functional isolation, then dismissed shortly afterward despite being fit for work.
The manager also alleged that the workplace was marked by intense pressure to meet targets and by demands she considered humiliating. Among the situations described were requirements to attend meetings dressed as characters and to perform choreographies on stage.
At first instance, the court recognized the discriminatory nature of the dismissal and the exposure to embarrassing situations, ordering Avon to pay double the manager remuneration as well as moral damages of R$ 100,000.
The Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region later reduced the moral damages award to R$ 35,000 and set aside the finding of discriminatory dismissal, reasoning that depression does not automatically create a presumption of stigma or prejudice.
When the case reached the TST, reporting justice Delaide Miranda Arantes emphasized that depression is recognized by the World Health Organization as one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and that social stigma is one of the greatest barriers to patient recovery.
In the specific case, she found that the short interval between the employee return to work and her dismissal was sufficient to establish a presumption of discrimination.
On that basis, she applied TST Precedent 443, under which dismissal of an employee with a stigmatizing disease is presumed discriminatory, requiring the employer to demonstrate a technical, economic or structural reason for termination. The court found that this had not occurred.
The panel followed that understanding, reinstated the finding of discriminatory dismissal and maintained the order for payment of double wages.
The moral damages amount set by the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region was maintained.
Case: RRAg-1000716-43.2018.5.02.0472
Source: Migalhas
