Employee was reinstated to the wholesale chain after court decision Personal File The Labor Court annulled, in the second instance, the decision that forced Roldão Atacadista to reinstate an employee fired after questioning charges for the health plan used to treat her autistic son. The reversal followed an appeal filed by the company, but the worker's defense informed that it will appeal the decision (read the position below). The 37-year-old woman is the mother of a 10-year-old boy with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). She was terminated in October 2025, days after questioning the Human Resources (HR) sector about a debt of more than R$38,000 relating to co-participation in the child's therapies. ? Click here to follow the new g1 Santos channel on WhatsApp. Understand the case In March, the 2nd Labor Court of Praia Grande had considered the dismissal discriminatory. The judge of first instance ordered the employee's reinstatement, which occurred on April 8, in addition to the payment of retroactive salaries and compensation of R$50,000 for moral damages. The wholesaler appealed and, on June 25, the 15th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region (TRT-2) accepted the request. The case's rapporteur, Maria Inês Ré Soriano, reformed the sentence, canceling the reinstatement and excluding the financial sentences. Court orders Roldão to reinstate mother of autistic woman fired after questioning health plan What is Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and what rights are guaranteed by law
Court cancels return to employment of mother of autistic child fired after questioning health plan
Employee was reinstated to the wholesale chain after court decision Personal File The Labor Court annulled, in the second instance, the decision that forced Roldão Atacadista to reinstate an employee fired after...
The judges recognized that the woman contacted HR due to the charges, but concluded that there was no evidence that the complaint led to the unfair dismissal. In the decision, the rapporteur argued that the employee's problems with the management of the plan and the attempts to pay in installments do not prove retaliation. According to the judge, "excessive use due to your child's health condition, in itself, does not give rise to possible restrictive conduct by the employer”. According to the worker's lawyer, Matheus Lins, she used the corporate health plan based on instructions from HR itself. The sector would have authorized the therapies without warning the employee about the risk of debt formation. What does the defense say? Lins stated that he disagreed with the result and informed that the employee continues to work in the wholesale network as long as the process allows for resources. He assesses that the court focused only on the thesis of discriminatory dismissal. For the defense, the decision ignored that the dismissal was a "form of retaliation" after the worker formally questioned the high discounts for her son's treatment. The lawyer also claims that the ruling disregarded the testimony of a company representative, which would contradict the justification for restructuring. According to the lawyer, the representative admitted at the hearing that the employee had "exemplary functional conduct" and never suffered punishment. Furthermore, the company would have maintained exactly the same number of cashiers after her departure. The defense also criticizes the fact that the termination period was consumed by "huge discounts" from the health plan. Lins highlighted that the worker left "without receiving a single cent" and only received unemployment insurance after years of working for the company. The lawyer reported that, one month after the dismissal, the company changed its internal regulations to fully deduct co-payments. He also pointed out a procedural omission, as the TRT-2 did not judge the legal limits of discounts on severance pay when reversing the reinstatement. The defense will file motions for clarification to try to complement the trial. If the decision of the second instance is upheld, the lawyer stated that he will appeal to the Superior Labor Court (TST). VIDEOS: g1 in 1 Minute Santos
