Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
8 comments 
Labor Court Decision in Pernambuco Uses Gender Protocol, Classifies Conduct as Sexual Harassment, Claims that Licking an Ear in the Workplace Justifies Dismissal for Cause, and TRT-6 Upholds the Dismissal for Cause Imposed by the Tourist Reception in Tamandaré, Serving as a Warning About the Limits of Humor at Work
On March 7, 2025, during the lunch break at a tourist reception in Tamandaré, on the South Coast of Pernambuco, an employee approached a colleague under the pretense of whispering something in her ear and, without any consent, licked the worker’s ear. The episode, witnessed by other colleagues, was deemed by the company as a serious violation of the victim’s dignity and the professional environment, leading to her dismissal for cause the very next day, March 8, 2025.
Months later, on July 25, 2025, the case reached the Labor Court with the former employee’s attempt to annul the punishment. He claimed that the atmosphere was one of joking, that the work environment was “harmonious,” and that the dismissal had been arbitrary and disproportionate. The Only Labor Court in Barreiros rejected the request, and the Regional Labor Court of the 6th Region, TRT-6, upheld the decision in the second instance, consolidating the understanding that it was sexual harassment incompatible with the continuation of the employment relationship.
How the Labor Court Framed the Episode in Tamandaré
The records indicated that the worker was taken by surprise by the physical contact without authorization, during the work break, inside the establishment of the tourist reception.
-
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
The victim reported feeling “in shock and deeply disrespected”, that she had never authorized any intimacy with the colleague, and that she considered the act a sexual bodily invasion.
The Labor Court understood that the conduct exceeded any limit of tolerable joking in the professional environment.
For the lower court and for the TRT-6, licking a colleague’s ear without consent constitutes behavior of a sexual nature, directed against the dignity of the worker, and qualifies as sexual harassment.
In this context, the dismissal for cause was considered proportional to the gravity of the act.
Rapid Internal Investigation and Immediate Dismissal for Cause
After the complaint made by the worker to her superior right after the episode, the company conducted an internal investigation and, the day after the incident, on March 8, decided to dismissing for cause the employee.
The former employee argued in court that there had been no formal structured procedure, with a committee or extended investigation, and that this would render the punishment invalid.
However, the Labor Court assessed that the company acted within its disciplinary prerogative.
From the victim’s account, the presence of colleagues at the scene, and the worker’s own confession, the judges considered that there were sufficient elements for the application of dismissal for cause, without the need for a complex inquiry.
For the TRT-6, in situations of evident sexual harassment, the employer’s quick response is not only legitimate but expected to protect the rest of the team and the work environment.
Defense Claimed a Playful Atmosphere and Absence of Disciplinary History
In his defense, the former employee argued that the workplace had a relaxed atmosphere, that colleagues joked with each other, and that the episode occurred during the celebration of his daughter’s birth.
He stated that the environment was “very relaxed,” that the act was a “joke,” and emphasized that he had worked for more than three years at the company without prior warnings or penalties.
These arguments did not convince the Labor Court.
The TRT-6 pointed out that the absence of disciplinary history does not authorize serious violations of colleagues’ dignity, especially in conduct of a sexual nature.
The court recorded that the worker himself admitted to having “licked the ear” of a colleague and that the alleged relaxed atmosphere does not mitigate the nature of sexual harassment.
For the judges, the seriousness of the act alone justifies the dismissal for cause, even if it was the employee’s first serious offense.
Gender Protocol of CNJ and Reading of Sexual Harassment
The rapporteur, judge Fábio Farias, based the vote on the application of the Protocol for Judging with a Gender Perspective from the National Justice Council.
This document guides judges to consider power asymmetries and historical contexts that affect sexual dignity, especially for women, in the workplace and in other social relations.
By applying the protocol, the Labor Court recognized that acts such as licking a colleague’s ear without consent cannot be relativized as “jokes” or “gestures of affection.”
The understanding of the TRT-6 was that this type of conduct falls within the spectrum of sexual harassment, even if it occurred in a single episode, because it involves intimate, unsolicited physical contact in a situation of hierarchy or professional coexistence.
Thus, the dismissal for cause was seen as a response compatible with the need to protect the victim and prevent future occurrences.
Defense Position and Possible Appeal to the Superior Labor Court
The defense of the former employee, represented by attorney Wilson Lima, argues that the configuration of sexual harassment would require repeated actions with the potential to cause humiliation or prolonged embarrassment.
In the defense thesis, a single episode would not be sufficient for dismissal for cause, especially in a history of more than three years of employment without disciplinary sanctions.
Even after the understanding was upheld by the TRT-6, the defense announced it intends to appeal to the Superior Labor Court.
The central argument is that essential elements for just cause are lacking, and that such serious decisions should strictly observe the principles of contradiction, broad defense, and legality.
So far, however, what has been consolidated in the records is the Labor Court’s diagnosis that the episode is classified as sexual harassment and that the dismissal for cause is legally sustainable in light of the evidence.
Message from the Labor Court to Companies and Workers
The case reinforces a clear message from the Labor Court to companies, managers, and employees: sexual conduct without consent, even if disguised as “joking,” has no legitimate place in the professional environment.
Invasive gestures, such as licking a colleague’s ear, are treated as a violation of a person’s dignity and can immediately lead to dismissal for cause, as well as liability in other spheres.
For organizations, the ruling of the TRT-6 serves as a warning about the need for prompt investigation, immediate protection of the victim, and formal documentation of disciplinary decisions, especially in cases of sexual harassment.
For workers, the precedent shows that a “relaxed atmosphere” protects no one against actions that cross the boundaries of respect and physical and emotional integrity of colleagues.
In your view, cases like this tried by the Labor Court should always result in dismissal for cause or would there be some form of intermediate penalty before the definitive termination of the contract?
Agora caberia a funcionaria, ja que a coisa toda veio a tona, pedir em juízo uma indenização por danos para esse sujeito e que sirva de exemplo, para outros bons galanteadores baratos que vivem importunando as vidas de muitas mulheres.
A decisão da justiça do trabalho foi corretíssima, talvez a mulher é até casada aí fica o constrangimento tanto da mulher como pra família dela, e a atitude do ex colega de trabalho extrapolou os limites de Brincadeira.
Punição rápida e firme. Serve de exemplo de dissuasão e como se deve tratar o abusador. Tomara que ainda seja obrigado a pagar indenização por danos morais à vítima. Parabéns à justiça do trabalho pela exemplar decisão!