Compensation of R$5 million. Behind it is a collective action filed by the Public Ministry of Labor (MPT) against Atacadão, a company in the Carrefour Brasil Group, and a series of reports of moral, sexual and maternal harassment, as well as evidence of mental illness among employees. The conviction was imposed by the Regional Labor Court of Rio de Janeiro (TRT-RJ), in August last year, after the judges concluded that the evidence gathered indicated the existence of a hostile work environment that was harmful to the health of employees, especially women. ?? Do you have any reporting suggestions? Send it to g1 Among the elements analyzed were absences due to mental disorders and reports of harassment. One of the cases cited in the lawsuit involved an employee whose clothes were stained by menstrual blood after she was unable to get permission to leave the register in time to go to the bathroom. In a statement, Atacadão stated that the first instance decision was favorable to the company and stated that it maintained reporting channels, preventive training and disciplinary measures. The company also informed that it has already appealed the conviction. (See note below.) The decision became one of the most emblematic cases of holding companies responsible for issues related to mental health in the workplace. But it also exposes one of the main challenges of this type of action: demonstrating that the professional context contributed to an employee's illness. The debate takes on new contours with the update of Regulatory Standard No. 1 (NR-1), which obliges companies to identify, prevent and manage psychosocial risk factors capable of affecting workers' health. In practice, the change increases attention on situations such as harassment, excessive pressure, abusive goals and other conditions that can contribute to illness. However, between identifying these factors and holding the company responsible in a specific case, there is still a complex path, which involves medical reports, expertise, professional history and court decisions. After all, when can a mental disorder be considered a consequence of work? And what is needed to prove this relationship? The puzzle of proving mental illness Unlike a physical accident, in which there is generally a more direct relationship between cause and consequence, mental disorders tend to appear gradually, silently and through a combination of factors, explains Leandro Savoy, a psychiatrist specializing in high performance for executives. ? Anxiety, burnout, depression and severe reactions to stress rarely have a single cause. Financial issues, family problems, emotional history, economic insecurity, personal relationships and previous experiences can also contribute to illness. According to experts interviewed by g1, the Court does not seek to identify whether work was the only cause of the disease, but whether it had a relevant role in worsening, triggering or maintaining the condition. Sílvia Lira, lawyer and partner in the labor area at B/luz, states that the biggest challenge, both for the worker and the employer, is to demonstrate that there is a relationship between work and mental illness. ?? ATTENTION: Even when there are personal factors involved, the company can still be held responsible if it is proven that the work environment contributed significantly to the illness. Messages outside of working hours, abusive targets, harassment and frequent absences are among the factors analyzed in cases of work-related psychological illness. Pexels Therefore, doctors, companies and the Court itself analyze work dynamics: goals, working hours, demands, organizational climate, relationship with leaders, out-of-hours messages and management practices that are often naturalized. An episode of this type gained repercussion in October 2024. Banco Santander was convicted of moral damage after employees reported a routine marked by pressure, abusive charges and humiliation imposed by managers. To g1, Santander stated that the case is still under discussion and that it maintains prevention, governance and internal channels for investigating complaints. (see note below) To reach a conviction like this, the Court usually crosses different types of evidence to understand how that work environment worked in practice. According to Lira, a lawyer at b/luz, this analysis includes messages sent outside of working hours, journey records, absence history, statements from colleagues, internal complaints, conversations on corporate applications, among others. In many cases, the repetition of illnesses in the same sector also draws attention. ? When different workers present similar symptoms under the same leadership or work dynamics, this can reinforce signs of psychosocial risk. The company's attitude towards signs of psychological distress, such as ignoring complaints, frequent absences and high turnover are also assessed. Brazil has more than 546,000 absences due to mental health in 2025 and breaks a record From reaction to prevention It is in this context that the changes to Regulatory Standard No. 1 (NR-1) come into play, which officially came into force in May and expanded the obligation of companies to identify and monitor psychosocial risks in the workplace. Unattainable goals, exhausting working hours, constant pressure, moral harassment, lack of autonomy, overload, after-hours demands and toxic interpersonal relationships have become part of the labor inspection radar. Until recently, many companies treated mental health as a strictly individual issue, linked to the worker's "resilience". With the update of NR-1, psychosocial risk is now also understood as a result of the way work is organized. This means that companies now have the obligation to identify potentially sick situations