Efforts to combat electoral harassment in the workplace are intensifying: measures taken by the higher courts and the Public Prosecutor’s Office ahead of the 2026 elections

With the 2026 General Elections approaching, the need to prevent electoral harassment in the workplace is coming into focus for companies.

Electoral harassment refers to any conduct by an employer, supervisor, or company representative who, by taking advantage of the subordinate relationship and economic power inherent in the employment relationship, seeks to induce, coerce, or compel an employee to vote for a specific candidate, party, or coalition—or to refrain from freely expressing their political preference.

The practice can be ① active, when there is a positive act in this regard (targeted speeches, distribution of campaign materials, veiled threats of dismissal or retaliation), or ② passive, when the company, aware of situations of political coercion occurring within its environment, fails to take action to curb them.

The need for companies to include occupational risk assessments and measures to prevent electoral harassment—whether through commission or omission—stems from the fact that the institutional framework against electoral harassment in the workplace is becoming increasingly stringent.

In just a few months, the Superior Electoral Court (“TSE”) has tightened the regulations applicable to companies and labor unions. The Superior Labor Court (“TST”) upheld a substantial award for collective emotional distress, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office has begun treating the issue as a priority.

The result is a broader, faster accountability framework that leaves less room for defense for companies that fail to prepare in advance.

Regulatory and Institutional Evolution

The first move came from the TSE. Resolution No. 23,755/2026, which amended TSE Resolution No. 23,610/2019, now expressly prohibits campaign advertising and electoral harassment in both public and private workplaces. The most relevant point for companies lies in how the rule allocates responsibility: it applies not only to those who engage in such conduct but also to those who allow it to occur—which includes the company itself when it fails to act in the face of situations involving embarrassment or political pressure among its employees.

In the labor sphere, case law has followed the same trend toward strictness. In 2026, the 7th Panel of the Superior Labor Court (TST) upheld a ruling ordering business associations to pay R$ 600,000 for collective emotional distress resulting from electoral harassment. More significant than the amount is the basis for the decision: the damages were deemed to be presumed based on the unlawful act itself, eliminating the need for employees to prove individual harm—which significantly limits companies’ ability to mount a defense in future cases.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office took a similar approach. The Deputy Attorney General for Electoral Affairs instructed prosecutors and electoral prosecutors to immediately open civil and criminal investigations whenever they identify evidence of electoral harassment, including in cases referred by the Labor Prosecutor’s Office and the Labor Courts themselves. In practice, this turns any labor complaint on the subject into a gateway to simultaneous electoral and criminal investigations.

This integration between institutions is already formalized. The Technical Cooperation Agreement signed between the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) and the Labor Public Prosecutor’s Office, valid until December 31, 2026, consolidates joint action in combating electoral harassment in the workplace. This represents a structural change: the investigation will no longer occur in isolation in each sphere and will now involve a direct flow of information between the Labor Courts, the Labor Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the Electoral Courts.

The Consequences for Businesses

This new situation poses concrete and immediate risks for companies, which are now required to respond more comprehensively and more quickly to any instances of electoral harassment identified on their premises:

• Expanded labor liabilities : Under the TST’s new ruling, companies may be ordered to pay collective compensatory damages for emotional distress even if no individual employee proves financial or psychological harm; the mere characterization of the conduct as electoral harassment is sufficient—which significantly increases the risk for companies with larger workforces;

• Institutional and reputational exposure : This issue is now a stated priority for the TSE, MPT, and MPF, which increases the likelihood of public repercussions for any identified case, with effects that extend beyond the legal sphere and impact the company’s image among customers, partners, and the market itself.

What Companies Should Do Now

Given this scenario, prevention is no longer merely a best practice but becomes a direct legal safeguard. Certain measures should be adopted as a matter of priority:

• Make this issue explicit in the Code of Conduct and in internal communications: make it clear, in writing and in a way that is accessible to all employees, that the election period requires a higher standard of respect and political neutrality within the company, with clear rules on what is and is not permitted;

• drafting and reviewing the corporatecompliance policy for the election period;

• Invest in specific leadership training: the risk of political harassment often originates from the top, since a manager’s position in the hierarchy amplifies the impact of any political comment, making such conduct more serious and more difficult to curb without prior guidance and adequate training;

• establish clear workplace rules: prohibit campaign clothing, stickers, and other campaign materials in the workplace, including in corporate virtual environments, and expressly prohibit the use of company assets—vehicles, laptops, and messaging groups—for any election-related activities;

• Workshops on preventing workplace bullying, sexual harassment, and electoral harassment, with awareness-raising efforts aimed at leaders and teams.

Companies that have not yet brought their internal policies into line with the new regulatory landscape face a real risk of being found liable and investigated, with presumed collective damages.

The Labor Law Team at the law firm Araújo e Policastro Advogados is at your service.

Authors:

Ana Lúcia Pinke Ribeiro de Paiva – apinke@araujopolicastro.com.br

Marcos Rafael Carneiro – mcarneiro@araujopolicastro.com.br