A recent decision issued by the 17th Labor Court of São Paulo, in a case sponsored by our firm in defense of the defendant company, reinforces a point that is increasingly relevant for companies facing labor lawsuits: the Labor Courts have not tolerated the deliberate alteration of the truth of the facts, applying express penalties for bad-faith litigation to the plaintiff when abusive procedural conduct is identified. The ruling is especially relevant because it demonstrates that corporate conduct based on documentation, clear internal policies, and evidentiary consistency can not only prevent undue claims but also lead to the procedural liability of the plaintiff.
In the case defended by our firm, the plaintiff alleged persecution, excessive rigor, and disproportionate application of disciplinary penalties, seeking the reversal of the dismissal for just cause and compensation for moral and material damages. However, the evidence produced in the case file demonstrated a completely different scenario, with unjustified absences, repeated non-compliance with sanitary regulations, and the practice of fraud in a loyalty program, duly proven by documents and electronic messages.
The ruling recognized the validity of the employer's exercise of managerial power, highlighting that the application of warnings and suspensions respected the criterion of graduated penalties and was supported by internal policies previously known and signed by the employee. Any allegation of harassment or excessive rigor was also dismissed, since the measures adopted were directly related to food safety and the franchisor's requirements, and there was no evidence of humiliating or abusive treatment.
The central point of the decision, however, lies in the analysis of the plaintiff's procedural conduct. In her personal testimony, she expressly denied using her own CPF (Brazilian taxpayer identification number) in sales made to clients, a statement that was directly contradicted by documentary evidence attached to the case file, including WhatsApp conversations in which the plaintiff herself confirmed the irregularity. Given this objective contradiction, the Court recognized the conscious alteration of the truth of the facts.
Based on article 793-B, item II, of the CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws), the judge ordered the plaintiff to pay a fine for bad-faith litigation, set at 5% (amount in words) on the updated value of the case, in favor of the defendant company. The decision clearly states that the Labor Court cannot condone conduct that violates procedural good faith, especially when a party attempts to mislead the Court through knowingly false statements.
This point deserves special attention from companies. The application of bad faith litigation is not automatic, but depends on robust proof of unfair conduct. In this specific case, the existence of consistent documentation, formalized internal policies, records of warnings, and digital evidence was crucial in demonstrating the veracity of the company's version and highlighting the plaintiff's attempt to distort the facts in court.
From a preventative standpoint, the decision reinforces the importance of companies maintaining effective internal controls, organized documentation, and clear records of disciplinary measures taken. Well-written internal policies, signed employee acknowledgment forms, and the preservation of electronic evidence are essential elements not only for defending the merits of the case but also for characterizing any potential procedural bad faith on the part of the opposing party.
Furthermore, the ruling demonstrates that generic allegations of persecution, harassment, or excessive rigor do not hold up when dissociated from concrete evidence. Conversely, when confronted with credible documentation, they can expose the claimant to significant procedural consequences, including fines and the awarding of attorney's fees.
For companies, this case serves as a positive warning: proactive, structured, and legally sound action not only reduces the risk of conviction but also strengthens their defensive position against frivolous lawsuits. Bad faith litigation ceases to be a theoretical exception and becomes an effective tool for suppressing the abusive use of labor law proceedings.
Our firm has a team specializing in labor law, liability management, and strategic litigation, with extensive experience in conducting technical defenses, organizing evidence, and working towards preventing litigation and mitigating risks.