Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
1 comment 
The Decision Reinforces That the Probationary Contract Has Its Own Risks and That the Penalty Foreseen in the CLT Is the Only Legal Consequence for Early Termination When There Are No Indications of Bad Faith, Firm Promise of Hiring, or Any Illegal Act by the Employer
The refusal of Justice to grant compensation for “loss of a chance” reignited the debate over the legal limits of probationary contracts and the expectations created at the beginning of a professional relationship. The case involves a nursing technician who resigned from her previous job to take on a new opportunity but was dismissed just a few days after signing the new contract.
As detailed by the Regional Labor Court of Minas Gerais, the worker claimed that she suffered material and moral loss by losing the old position and not having her hiring confirmed by the new employer. However, the decision emphasized that the probationary contract entails inherent risks for both parties and that the company did not commit an illegal act by terminating the relationship early.
The information was disclosed by the TRT-MG, which confirmed the understanding that the penalty in article 479 of the CLT is sufficient to remedy the early termination and does not, by itself, constitute the legal damage known as “loss of a chance.”
-
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
Probationary Contract and Expectations for Hiring
The case began when the nursing technician stated that she voluntarily left her previous job after receiving a promise of employment from the defendant company, which specializes in providing outsourced services. After signing the probationary contract, with a stipulated term of 30 days, she was surprised by the notice of contract termination even before starting her practical activities.
The legislation establishes that probationary contracts have a provisional nature, allowing the parties to assess the actual working conditions before a possible confirmation. Therefore, the Justice considered that the plaintiff took a calculated risk by leaving her previous job to enter into a relationship that, by definition, is temporary.
Even so, the worker claimed to have suffered significant losses since she allegedly lost a concrete opportunity by trusting the promise of hiring. However, the panel found that there was no irregular conduct by the company capable of constituting compensable damage.
For the judges, the company complied exactly with what labor legislation requires by communicating the termination within the probationary period and paying the legally stipulated penalty in the contract. Thus, there were no signs of abusive, discriminatory, or illegal conduct.
Consequently, the Court reaffirmed that mere frustration of professional expectations does not constitute the recognized damage called “loss of a chance,” as this legal concept requires proof of a concrete lost opportunity and the existence of an illegal act by the employer.
Article 479 of the CLT and Early Termination
During the trial, the Ninth Panel of TRT-MG analyzed the penalty provided for in article 479 of the CLT, which guarantees the employee half of the amounts they would receive until the end of the contract when there is a dismissal without just cause before the stipulated deadline. In this case, the company fully deposited this compensation, as recorded in the próprio process.
The first-instance court had understood that, by paying the penalty required by law, the company had already repaired the legal consequence of the early termination. The panel confirmed this interpretation, highlighting that labor legislation does not provide for any additional compensation when there is no illegal act.
For the reporting judge, appointed judge Sandra Maria Generoso Thomaz Leidecker, there was no evidence indicating abusive practice or breach of contract. The termination resulted from the cancellation of the contract between the employer and the service taker, a fact that made it impossible to maintain the plaintiff’s position.
The judge emphasized that the company acted legally by applying only the contractual penalty without exceeding its obligations. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim for additional compensation was not supported due to the absence of illegality.
The decision reinforced that “loss of a chance” requires the demonstration that the worker was deprived of a real and concrete opportunity due to the employer’s fault. However, the mere termination of a probationary contract does not meet these requirements.
Responsibility, Assumed Risk, and Non-Existence of Illegal Act
The Justice also highlighted that the contractual model itself demonstrates that both parties were aware of the temporary nature of the relationship. Thus, the plaintiff assumed a risk by leaving her previous job to enter into a probationary contract, which does not guarantee continuity after its evaluation.
According to the Court, the early termination did not exhibit any trace of bad faith, deceit, or premeditated deception by the employer. On the contrary, the company merely reacted to an external event — the termination of the contract with the taker — which made it impossible to maintain the position.
Upon reviewing the appeal, the Panel concluded that the situation did not meet the legal requirements to characterize compensation for “loss of a chance,” as there was no evidence of a firm promise of hiring nor any demonstration that the company acted to cause harm to the worker.
Thus, the judges denied the appeal and fully upheld the first-instance ruling. The process, after the final judgment, was definitively archived, ending the legal dispute.
Consequently, the decision becomes yet another significant precedent reinforcing that frustrated expectations, without proof of illegal act, do not generate additional judicial compensation.
And you, do you believe that Justice was correct in denying compensation for “loss of a chance,” considering that the worker left another job relying on the new position, or do you think she should receive additional compensation for the damages caused?
Mas que foi sacanagem com a mesma foi