Equal Opportunity in the Workplace: Trends in Labor Courts

The agenda for equal opportunity in the workplace is no longer merely a matter of corporate policy; it has become an increasingly integral part of the regulatory and judicial agenda. Law No. 14,611/2023 and its implementing regulations—which address equal pay and compensation criteria between men and women who perform work of equal value or hold the same position—represent a milestone in this movement.

But that’s not all. In a recent ruling involving a company in the industrial sector, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Labor Court upheld a finding of indirect gender discrimination related to the absence of women in leadership positions. Although the case is still subject to appeal, the decision represents yet another chapter in a trend in case law toward requiring companies to adopt objective, documented, and transparent criteria for hiring, compensation, and professional promotion.

This interpretation was upheld by the lower courts and affirmed by the 3rd Panel of the Superior Labor Court (TST), which emphasized the need for objective promotion criteria and the possibility of recognizing indirect discrimination when supported by concrete evidence.

The case originated from a Public Civil Action filed by the Labor Prosecutor’s Office following an investigation that revealed the absence of women in management positions at the business unit. The lower courts recognized indirect discrimination, and the Superior Labor Court (TST) upheld this ruling, reaffirming that the absence of objective promotion criteria can justify reversing the burden of proof and serve as grounds for an award of collective moral damages.

This ruling is not an isolated precedent. In recent years, there has been a convergence of legislative changes, public policies, and judicial decisions aimed at strengthening equal opportunity in the workplace. The Labor Courts have been shifting their focus away from analyzing only explicit acts of discrimination to also examining organizational practices that are seemingly neutral but capable of producing disproportionate effects on certain groups.

The decision highlights a consistent trend within the Labor Courts to align the interpretation of labor law with the principles of governance, transparency, and diversity. It is reasonable to expect greater use of statistical indicators in class-action lawsuits, increased activity by the Public Ministry of Labor (MPT), and greater judicial scrutiny of internal processes related to promotion, compensation, and the filling of leadership positions.

Along similar lines, though on a broader scale, a renowned hospital in São Paulo recently faced a Public Civil Action filed against it—this time by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office—to challenge the admission criteria adopted by the institution for the 2026 medical residency program. According to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF), the hospital allegedly failed to reserve spots for groups eligible for affirmative action policies, despite participating in programs linked to the Unified Health System (SUS) and receiving indirect public benefits, such as tax exemptions and participation in federal health support programs—which, from the MPF’s perspective, obligates the hospital to comply with Ministry of Health regulations, which have made the adoption of quotas mandatory even in medical residency programs offered by private institutions operating in partnership with the SUS.

The lawsuit requires the hospital to publish supplementary notices for the 2026 selection process, reserving spots for Black people, people with disabilities, Indigenous people, Quilombolas, and transgender people. News reports on the case mention the percentages set forth in Ministry of Health regulations, resulting in a total quota of 55% of the positions (30% for Black people, 10% for people with disabilities, and 5% for each of the other groups).

The case, which is still in the initial hearing phase and in which the request for an emergency injunction has been denied, may determine whether private institutions that offer medical residency programs affiliated with the SUS are required to fully implement federal quota policies. For this reason, the case has the potential to serve as a precedent for other hospitals and medical residency programs across the country, shifting the central issue— which is of paramount importance: the academic merit of candidates versus the requirement (or lack thereof) for private entities that operate medical residency programs regulated by the government to adopt affirmative action measures.

Case law has been signaling a strengthening of the theory of indirect discrimination, a greater emphasis on statistical evidence, greater use of the National Council of Justice’s Protocol for Gender-Sensitive Adjudication—among other developments—the dynamic reversal of the burden of proof when there is consistent evidence, greater deference to public civil actions filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the recognition of collective moral damages arising from structural practices.

The Labor Court confirms that a generic provision on equal treatment is not sufficient; active transparency and accountability are required regarding compensation and, above all, regarding the criteria for access to positions and promotion. It is precisely on this point that the ruling in the first case mentioned above gains significance: it demonstrates, in practice, that the lack of transparency in promotion criteria can be interpreted as evidence of discrimination and lead to a class-action judgment, which suggests that companies should adopt:

review of recruitment and promotion criteria;
formal documentation of decision-making processes;
periodic audits of diversity indicators;
review of compensation policies;
leadership training;
document management for potential use as evidence;
monitoring of reports under Law No. 14,611/2023.

The ruling does not establish a new legal framework, but rather reinforces a trend that had already been developing through the work of the legislature, the Labor Prosecutor’s Office, and the Labor Courts: the growing demand for transparency, objectivity, and traceability in corporate decisions related to compensation, promotion, and access to leadership positions. More than simply complying with specific legal obligations, companies are now being held accountable for their ability to demonstrate, through objective evidence, that their internal processes are effectively consistent with the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination.

Although they involve different issues and rely on various arguments, the two cases above say a great deal about private autonomy and institutional management freedom—concepts that are supported by the employer’s (non-absolute) managerial and discretionary power to organize, hire, select candidates, and terminate employees —in contrast to the implementation of public policies on substantive equality and their sufficiency (or lack thereof) in combating discrimination.

In any case, in a context of increasing administrative and judicial oversight, the ability to objectively demonstrate how decisions regarding hiring, compensation, and promotion are made is likely to become one of the key tools for preventing litigation and protecting an organization’s reputation.

Our Labor Law Team at Araújo e Policastro Advogados is available to answer any questions or provide further clarification.