Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
Target Worker Bullied In The Workplace Received “Laziness Trophy” And Will Be Compensated For Moral Damages After Labor Court Decision In Minas Gerais. Case Involves ADHD, Moral Harassment And Occupational Disease.
A worker with ADHD who received a “laziness trophy” from colleagues in an internal company action will be compensated for moral damages of R$ 20 thousand.
The 5th Panel of the TRT of the 3rd Region upheld the recognition of moral harassment identified in the first instance, confirmed that the work environment aggravated the employee’s anxiety and depression, and set the amount of compensation at a lower level than initially determined.
Decision And Compensation Amount
The panel followed the essential grounds of the sentence that recognized the harassment but adjusted the amount.
-
Gun permits for veterinarians advance in the Chamber: see what changes and what the requirements are
-
New Inmetro label removes D, E, and F refrigerators from shelves in Brazil since January: classes A, B, and C now pay up to R$ 400 less on the electricity bill.
-
In Brazil, will employers be required to give employees time off during the national team’s World Cup matches?
-
CNH do Brasil sets record with 303% increase in the first four months of 2026: 4.8 million applied for their first driver’s license
In the initial phase, the labor court had set R$ 50 thousand for moral damages and ordered the indirect termination of the contract.
In the appeal, the reporting judge, Maurício Ribeiro Pires, reaffirmed the occurrence of bullying and the company’s responsibility for failing to provide a healthy environment, reducing the compensation to R$ 20 thousand.
According to the judge, the compensation must observe criteria of moderation, “so that it is not so large as to constitute a source of unjust enrichment, nor so insignificant as to fail to meet its punitive character.”
Bullying At Work And Repeated Conducts
Throughout the employment, the employee was the target of persistent ridicule.
The records indicate that she was called “slow” and accused of “playing dumb to survive”.
These practices, described by witnesses and supported by documentary evidence, culminated in the internal ceremony where the worker received the so-called “laziness trophy”.
The court classified this history as a case of moral harassment, as it violated the dignity of the person and exposed the victim to embarrassment before the team.
Expert Report And Connection To Mental Health
The judicial examination concluded that the work environment functioned as a factor of worsening anxiety and depression crises.
Although the employee already lived with attention deficit disorder, the report pointed to a concausal connection between the psychiatric manifestations and the situations experienced in the sector.
This conclusion was crucial for the recognition of occupational disease, a point confirmed by the reporting judge when analyzing the employer’s appeal.
Accident Stability And Legal Effects
With the characterization of the occupational disease, the worker began to fit into the accident stability provided in Article 118 of Law 8,213/91.
From this characterization, the TRT-3 ordered the payment of salaries and termination payments related to the stability period.
In addition, it ordered the correction of the CTPS, ensuring that the records accurately reflect the situation of the employment contract, according to the effects of the recognized stability.
Role Of The Company And Duty To Prevent
The decision emphasizes the business omission.
According to the ruling, the employer failed to take effective measures to curb intimidation practices and derogatory jokes directed at the employee.
In organizational contexts, labor jurisprudence assigns to the employer the duty to prevent and suppress behaviors that infringe on the honor, image, and health of their employees.
In this case, tolerating an “internal contest” that culminated in the awarding of a “laziness trophy” was deemed incompatible with this duty of protection.
Adjustment Of The Indemnity Quantum
Upon reevaluating the amount of moral damages, the reporting judge followed the legally recognized criteria: severity of the damage, economic capacity of the parties, punitive-pedagogical character, and reasonableness.
The reduction from R$ 50 thousand to R$ 20 thousand was justified to avoid both unjust enrichment and insufficient reparation.
The panel agreed with this understanding, forming a majority for the adequacy of the amount, without dismissing the conclusion about the harassment and its impacts on the worker’s health.
Moral Harassment: Practice, Evidence And Consequence
The process gathered witness statements and documents that corroborated the author’s narrative.
Among them, explicit references to being labeled “slow” and accused of “pretending,” as well as the trophy incident.
The confirmation by witnesses and through written evidence provided strength to the judicial conviction.
The practice of labeling employees, even under the guise of “joke,” was treated as sufficient to characterize organizational bullying, as it impacts subjective honor and creates a hostile environment.
Recognition Of Occupational Disease
The ruling reinforces the idea that, in worker health matters, it is not required that work be the only cause of illness for the purpose of liability.
It is sufficient to identify a concausal connection for related duties to arise, including stability and compensation for moral damages.
In this case, the technical analysis converged with reports of harassment, allowing for the recognition that the work context acted as a trigger for the worsening of the anxious-depressive condition.
Final Determinations Of The Court
In addition to the compensation for moral damages, the 5th Panel ordered the payment of salaries and termination payments relevant to the stability period, which includes the usual legal repercussions.
The correction of the CTPS was ordered to reflect this period and adjust the worker’s employment history.
These measures seek to restore, as far as possible, the concrete effects of the work-related illness.
Relevance Of The Case For The Corporate Environment
Episodes like those described in the process highlight the need for clear internal policies, effective reporting channels, and training for leadership to identify and interrupt abusive behaviors.
Labor jurisprudence has reiterated that internal rituals that expose employees to ridicule or reinforce stigmas, especially involving health conditions like ADHD, constitute a violation of personal rights and expose the company to civil liability.
At the same time, calibrating the indemnity amount seeks to guide the market on the measure of compensation in similar situations.
How does your company handle “jokes” among teams to ensure they do not cross the line of respect and do not become harassment?
-
-
-
-
4 people reacted to this.