Understand what is known about the case of the mother of an autistic child who was fired after questioning her health plan

? Click here to follow the new g1 Santos channel on WhatsApp. Check out what is known about the case so far: Why did the employee question the health plan values? When was the woman dismissed from the company? Why does the employee believe the dismissal was discriminatory? What was the decision in the first instance? What was the decision in the second instance? What did the rapporteur understand about the case? What does the employee's defense say? 1. Why did the employee question the health plan prices? According to lawyer Mateus Lins, who represents the worker, she used the plan based on information provided by the Human Resources (HR) sector, which authorized its use for her son's therapies, without alerting the woman about the possibility of debt formation. However, she received a charge of more than R$38,000 related to the corporate health plan, and sought explanations from the company's HR team. Back to top. 2. When was the woman dismissed from the company? In October 2025, three days after filing a written notice with the company questioning the charge, the employee was fired. “In addition to the layoff, the company promoted abusive discounts upon termination, issuing artificial amounts to compensate for an alleged debt and completely zeroing out the termination funds, leaving the worker without any amount to receive,” stated the lawyer. Back to top. 3. Why does the employee believe the dismissal was discriminatory? According to the employee's defense, the short period between the woman's notification to HR and her dismissal is evidence that the complaint led to her dismissal. Furthermore, the professional had a good working history, including receiving performance awards shortly before dismissal. Back to top. 4. What was the decision at first instance? Two witnesses were heard and stated that, during work, the woman contacted HR on several occasions to clarify doubts about co-participation in the health plan. The witness brought by the company reported that, until November 2025, the wholesale network limited the co-participation discount to R$150 per month. However, after the date, the installment plan was terminated and the discount became full. Therefore, judge Tiago Macedo Coelho Luz Rocha ordered the company to reinstate the employee and compensate her with R$50,000 for moral damages. “The company, being able to act with social responsibility, opted for a punitive measure that put the well-being of a vulnerable dependent at risk”, argued Rocha, in the decision published at the end of March 2026. Still in the decision, the judge ordered the company to pay the worker's salary from the date of dismissal until reinstatement, which took place on April 8 of this year. Back to top. 5. What was the decision in the second instance? The wholesaler appealed the decision 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. Back to top. 6. What did the rapporteur understand about the case? 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”. Back to top. 7. What does the employee's defense say? Lawyer Matheus 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 appeals. He said 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 stated 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 criticized 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). Back to top. VIDEOS: g1 in 1 Minute Santos