Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
Young Man, 20, Won Two Lawsuits Against Wholesaler in Praia Grande After Motorcycle Theft and Dismissal Considered Unfair by Justice
A 20-year-old young man achieved the right to receive around R$ 36,000 in compensations from a wholesale market in Praia Grande, in the São Paulo coast. The case involved two fronts: a civil lawsuit motivated by the theft of his motorcycle in the company’s parking lot, and a labor lawsuit concerning his dismissal shortly after the incident. The information comes from Portal G1.
The market has the right to appeal. At the time of publication, the chain had not responded to the press’s inquiries for a statement.
How It All Began
The young man worked as a store operator and, on January 11, left his motorcycle in the parking lot provided for customers and employees in the Anhanguera neighborhood.
-
From the typewriter to the home office: how work has changed and why new generations think differently
-
Work on holidays changes in Brazilian commerce and new rule targets supermarkets, pharmacies, retailers, and companies under mandatory collective bargaining agreement.
-
When does the end of the 6×1 schedule take effect in Brazil? Discussion gains momentum in Congress and could redefine the working hours of millions of employees, altering traditional work models in various sectors.
-
NR-1 obliges companies to pay attention to mental health at work and highlights the impact of abusive targets, exhausting work hours, and harassment on leaves due to psychological disorders.
Hours later, he received the news from a colleague that the vehicle was no longer there. According to him, he sought help from the parking lot supervisor and the management of the unit but received no assistance or access to the camera footage.
The next day, he filed an online police report and, in February, formally notified the company, requesting compensation for the stolen property. The response did not come.
Out of options, he filed a civil lawsuit in March to seek restitution.
Dismissal After the Claim
The young man’s lawyer, Matheus Lins, claims that the client was surprised a few days later. On April 22, the market was notified by the court regarding the lawsuit. Just two days later, the employee was dismissed without cause.
According to the defense, the dismissal was not a consequence of workforce cuts but rather retaliation. This is because the company claimed to reduce staff but did not provide evidence of this, in addition to hiring new employees for the same position right after the young man’s departure.
A witness, a coworker, confirmed in court that the parking lot was used by everyone, including managers, without any formal prohibition.
He also pointed out that the young man had recently been valued, having been assigned to work the morning shift, which is more competitive.
Civil Decision
In the civil lawsuit, Judge João Walter Cotrim Machado from the 4th Civil Court of Praia Grande granted partial victory to the former employee.
In a ruling on August 5, he ordered the company to pay R$ 19,587 as compensation for material damages.
However, he rejected the request for compensation for moral damages. According to the judge, despite the evident hardship, there was no evidence of harm to the employee’s image, honor, or dignity at a level that justified additional payment.
Labor Decision
In the labor lawsuit, judged by Judge Adriana de Jesus Pita Colella from the 1st Labor Court of Praia Grande, the understanding was different.
The judge found the claim for wages during the period between the dismissal and the ruling to be valid, condemning the company to pay around R$ 12,000. Additionally, she set a compensation of R$ 5,000 for moral damages.
The decision was published on August 8. The lawyer had requested R$ 25,000, but part of the amount was not accepted. Even so, the defense states that they will appeal to try to increase the amount.
Next Steps
With both cases concluded in the first instance, the former employee is entitled to receive nearly R$ 36,000 combining the judgments.
There is still room for appeal in both the civil and labor aspects.
Meanwhile, the case draws attention because it involves two sensitive issues: security in company parking lots and the protection of workers against dismissals that may have a retaliatory nature.
With information from G1.
Be the first to react!