Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
STF understands that minimum age undermines the purpose of special retirement
The judgment analyzed an action that the National Confederation of Industry Workers (CNTI) filed against points of the 2019 Pension Reform.
According to the entity, the reform created obstacles incompatible with constitutional principles related to human dignity, labor protection, and the right to social security. Furthermore, the CNTI argued that the minimum age requirement compromised the very essence of special retirement.
For this reason, the majority of the ministers decided to remove the rule. While one faction of the Court defended maintaining the changes approved by the National Congress, another assessed that the requirement imposed an excessive burden on workers exposed to harmful agents.
-
Court denies compensation to young man who lost his arm in a shark attack in Pernambuco: decision cites notorious risk area at Praia de Piedade, points to “exclusive fault of the victim” and reignites debate on signage, public responsibility, and swimming in Jaboatão dos Guararapes.
-
Pharmacy giant is fined R$ 10 million by the Maranhão Court for requiring CPF to grant discounts, pressuring consumers at the checkout, and raising a national alert about the collection of personal data in pharmaceutical retail.
-
Lightning vote in the Senate suspends rule on legal abortion in children, raises alarm at Conanda, and leads organizations to prepare a battle in the Supreme Federal Court against Congress’s decision.
-
Women lead the electorate in Santa Cruz do Sul, singles stand out, and the city concentrates more than a third of the region’s voters.
The winning faction gathered the votes of ministers André Mendonça, Kassio Nunes Marques, Dias Toffoli, Cármen Lúcia, Luiz Edson Fachin, and retired minister Rosa Weber. In contrast, ministers Luís Roberto Barroso, Alexandre de Moraes, Gilmar Mendes, Cristiano Zanin, and Luiz Fux voted to maintain the rule.
Minister André Mendonça points out risk to workers’ health
During the resumption of the judgment on June 3, 2026, André Mendonça stated that the rule forced many professionals to remain longer in health-damaging environments.
Additionally, the minister highlighted that special retirement was created precisely to reduce the impacts caused by continuous exposure to harmful agents. Therefore, requiring a minimum age created a contradiction within the pension system itself.
According to Mendonça, the rule generated an injustice by prolonging the stay of workers in conditions that could compromise their physical health over their lifetime.
In this sense, the minister assessed that the reforming constituent went beyond what was necessary by establishing an excessively rigid model. Consequently, the rule failed to fulfill the protective function intended for special retirement.
Conversion of special time to common time remains limited
Despite the removal of the minimum age, the Supreme Court maintained other important points of the Pension Reform.
Among them is the restriction related to the conversion of special time into common time.
Before 2019, workers who spent part of their careers in unhealthy activities could convert this period into common time using specific multiplication factors.
This conversion allowed for an increase in the total contribution time and an early access to retirement.
However, with the reform, this benefit only applies to periods worked until November 13, 2019.
The STF decided to maintain this limitation.
Thus, the special time worked after this date can no longer be converted for retirement purposes based on contribution time.
How special retirement worked before the Pension Reform
Before the 2019 Pension Reform, workers exposed to harmful agents could retire without meeting a minimum age requirement.
For example, professionals engaged in activities considered lower risk, such as nurses, doctors, chemists, locksmiths, and security guards, needed to prove 25 years of contribution in special activities.
Meanwhile, workers exposed to higher risks followed different rules. Those working in asbestos-related activities needed to prove 20 years of contribution. In turn, underground miners could request the benefit after 15 years of work.
Thus, the system recognized that certain professions cause accelerated wear and significantly increase health risks.
New method of calculating special retirement remains valid
Another point analyzed during the judgment involved the method of calculating the benefit.
Before the reform, special retirement guaranteed the worker 100% of the average salary calculated based on the 80% highest salaries received since 1994.
In this system, the 20% lowest contributions were discarded.
After the legislative change, the calculation began to consider all salaries received since July 1994 or since the start of contributions to the INSS.
Additionally, the new rule establishes that the benefit starts at 60% of the average salary.
Subsequently, the value increases by 2% for each year of contribution that exceeds the minimum required time.
The STF also decided to keep this methodology in effect.
Which workers can benefit from the decision
Special retirement is intended for professionals who work exposed to physical, chemical, or biological agents capable of harming health over time.
Among the agents considered harmful are chemical substances, carcinogenic materials, excessive noise, intense heat, ionizing radiation, and biological agents.
Various professional categories can be classified under this retirement model.
Among them are chemists, laboratory analysis technicians, X-ray technicians, nurses, doctors, graphic designers, dockworkers, miners, and metallurgists.
Additionally, other workers who prove permanent exposure to harmful agents may also be entitled to the benefit.
Decision may impact thousands of policyholders
Social security law experts assess that the ruling could influence thousands of administrative and judicial processes related to special retirement.
This is because the removal of the minimum age tends to facilitate access to the benefit for workers who have already fulfilled the necessary time of exposure to unhealthy conditions.
Furthermore, the decision reinforces the understanding that social security protection should consider the risks effectively faced by workers during their professional life.
With this, categories that work daily in potentially harmful environments to health now have an important precedent established by the country’s highest Court.
The expectation now is for the definition of the practical impacts of the decision on ongoing processes and the application of social security rules by the responsible bodies.
Do you believe that workers exposed daily to health risks should have different retirement rules compared to other professions?
Be the first to react!