Summary of a court ruling. This article summarizes the judgment in case no. 20580-98.2019.5.04.0022, decided by the 3rd Panel of Brazil's Superior Labor Court, based on the publication by Migalhas.

The 3rd Panel of the Superior Labor Court (Tribunal Superior do Trabalho, TST) upheld Trensurb's obligation to pay R$5,000 in moral damages to an employee included on an internal list of workers who had filed lawsuits against the company. The panel held that disclosing the names of employees in this situation is, as a rule, discriminatory and violates personality rights. The decision appears in case no. 20580-98.2019.5.04.0022.

The employee, who remains employed by Trensurb, alleged that he had suffered moral damages because the company made available on its intranet a list containing the names, case numbers and estimated amounts of the claims sought in labor lawsuits. The company acknowledged preparing the document and said it responded to a request from the Ministry of Cities (Ministério das Cidades) to support the 2019 Budget Bill. There was no evidence, however, that access to the material had been restricted or that the file had been removed from the internal network.

The TST agreed with the understanding of the Regional Labor Court of the 4th Region (Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 4ª Região) that disclosure to all employees exceeded the administrative purpose that had justified preparing the list. According to the ruling, exposing information about labor claims may affect workers' dignity, psychological integrity, intimacy, privacy and reputation. The panel also found that Brazil's Access to Information Law (Lei de Acesso à Informação) did not support broad disclosure and that lists of this kind may subject employees to embarrassment and possible retaliation in the workplace and labor market.

In practice, the ruling links the internal disclosure of data about labor lawsuits to the possibility of discrimination and liability for moral damages, even when the company claims an administrative purpose and is part of the public administration. The decision addresses the specific situation examined, and the material does not state whether it has become final; it therefore does not support saying that the decision is definitive or that it created a general rule automatically applicable to all cases.

With information from Migalhas.

This post was summarized from the original publication using artificial intelligence, with human review.