Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
1 comment 
On March 31, 2025, Labor Court Decision Confirmed Reinstatement of Bradesco Banker Dismissed for Photo in Crossfit During Sick Leave, Voided Just Cause without Technical Proof, and Placed Medical Expert Opinion and INSS Above Employer Suspicion on Social Media, Reinforcing Limits of Online Employer Supervision
On April 22, 2025, the Labor Court decision gained prominence after the First Panel of the TST upheld the reinstatement of a Bradesco banker, dismissed for just cause after posting a photo of herself doing crossfit during her sick leave, with training prescribed and monitored by a health professional.
The case gained weight because the Labor Court confirmed the order of the TRT-10 to reinstate the employee, a resident of the Federal District, rejecting the bank’s appeal. The ministers understood that, without technical support, it is not possible to equate the effort required in banking work with that required in crossfit training, and that training prescribed by an orthopedist, with professional monitoring, does not authorize the employer to ignore reports and decisions from the INSS.
How The Case of the Banker Dismissed After Photo in Crossfit Began
The banker was hired by Bradesco in 1993 for the position of clerk.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
In 2013, the employment contract was suspended due to inflammation of the tendons in the right elbow, a diagnosis that led to her being on sick leave.
The condition was recognized as related to the activities performed at the bank, and the National Institute of Social Security confirmed orthopedic injuries in the arms resulting from work.
Two years later, in 2015, Bradesco dismissed the employee for just cause after discovering a photo of her crossfit training posted on social media.
For the bank, the image would demonstrate that the employee was fit to perform significant physical activities, such as lifting tires and bars with weights, which, in the institution’s view, would be incompatible with the claimed incapacity for banking service.
What the Labor Court Decided in First Instance and at TRT-10
In the first instance, the Labor Court denied the banker’s request and upheld the just cause.
The ruling stated that “no one pushes a tractor tire if they are not fit to do so, nor do they lift weight above shoulder level,” reproducing the employer’s argument that the image in crossfit would reveal full fitness for work.
The procedural turnaround occurred in the Regional Labor Court of the 10th Region.
The TRT-10 reversed the just cause and ordered reinstatement, considering the evidence presented by the banker.
In the records, she demonstrated that the physical activity had been prescribed by an orthopedist as part of her treatment and was monitored by a professional in the field.
The court also valued the fact that the INSS had recognized the existence of orthopedic injuries related to work, which weakened the thesis of simulating incapacity.
The Role of TST and the Message of the Labor Court to Bradesco
Dissatisfied, Bradesco took the case to the TST, arguing that, although claiming incapacity for work, the banker demonstrated “strength and vigor” to perform intense exercises, such as pushing tires and lifting bars with weights of about 27 kilograms.
The aim was to overturn the decision of TRT-10 and restore the just cause.
However, the First Panel of the TST rejected the bank’s appeal without re-examining the merits.
In the vote, the rapporteur Hugo Scheuermann stated that it is not possible to conclude, without technical support, that work as a banker and the physical activities of crossfit have the same impact on the illness.
For the Labor Court, the fact that the worker is fit for certain exercises does not automatically authorize the conclusion that she is also fit to resume work activities at the bank.
Training Prescribed by a Doctor Does Not Nullify Sick Leave or Justify Just Cause
A central point of the ruling is the relationship between medical prescription, INSS decisions, and limits of employer supervision.
The banker presented reports indicating that the practice of physical activity was part of her treatment, with professional monitoring, and had her leave recognized by the INSS.
The Labor Court valued this set of evidence, understanding that the bank could not disregard the technical guidance based solely on a social media post.
In practice, the decision reinforces that training prescribed by a doctor cannot be treated as fraud to leave without robust evidence.
To avoid abuses, the Labor Court limits that the verification of any incompatibility between physical activity and illness requires technical analysis, not simple subjective impressions from the employer about what the image shows.
What the Case Teaches Workers and Companies
For workers, the process shows the importance of keeping medical reports, prescriptions, and records of medical follow-ups whenever physical activities are indicated as part of treatment.
In conflict situations, these documents help demonstrate that the exercise is not leisure but therapeutic conduct supported by health professionals and by INSS decisions.
For companies, the message is that the Labor Court does not accept just cause based solely on appearances, especially when there is institutional recognition of illness and specific medical prescription.
The TST’s decision signals that, before punishing an absent employee, the employer needs to seek consistent technical information, under penalty of having the dismissal annulled and being required to reinstate the worker.
In light of this precedent, the Labor Court reinforces that dismissal for just cause remains the most serious penalty in labor law, requiring clear proof of serious misconduct, and not just suspicions fueled by photos on social media.
Doctor-guided training does not automatically become proof of bad faith, and disciplinary control must respect legal and technical limits.
In your opinion, did the Labor Court act correctly in maintaining the reinstatement of the Bradesco banker who did crossfit with a medical prescription during her leave?
Só faltou a indenização por danos morais