On June 18, 2026, Minister Gilmar Mendes, rapporteur of ARE 1.532.603/PR, the paradigm case for Theme 1.389 of general repercussion, ordered the lifting of the national suspension of proceedings discussing the so-called "pejotização" (a practice of hiring individuals as independent contractors to avoid labor laws), allowing their regular progress before the first instance courts and the Regional Labor Courts.

The decision does not address the merits of the controversy, but it significantly reconfigures the processing dynamics of a large volume of cases that were stalled throughout the country.

The practice of "pejotização," the hiring of workers through a legal entity (Pessoa Jurídica) in place of an employment relationship governed by the CLT (Brazilian Labor Code), has become one of the points of greatest tension between the Labor Courts and the Supreme Federal Court. On one hand, there are labor court decisions that recognize the employment relationship and reject hiring through the PJ (Pessoa Jurídica) model; on the other hand, there is Supreme Federal Court jurisprudence that, in recent years, has been favoring the legality of forms of productive organization distinct from the traditional employment relationship.

This movement was consolidated in precedents such as ADPF 324 and Theme 725 (RE 958.252), in which the Supreme Federal Court recognized the legality of outsourcing both core and non-core activities, and ADC 48, which validated the hiring of independent freight carriers. It is within this context that Theme 1.389 is situated, aimed at defining, with general repercussion and binding effect, the constitutional limits of the use of independent contractors to avoid labor laws.

Once the general repercussion is recognized, the rapporteur may order the suspension of the processing of all pending cases dealing with the issue and being processed in the national territory (CPC, art. 1,035, § 5). This is exactly what happened in Topic 1,389: the national suspension sought to ensure the uniformity of the constitutional interpretation of the matter, avoid contradictory decisions, and preserve the effectiveness of the definitive pronouncement to be issued by the Supreme Court.

The measure, however, produced a significant side effect. The indiscriminate suspension, encompassing even cases still in the evidentiary phase or pending judgment by the lower courts, hampered the administration of justice, delaying the formation of the body of evidence, the delimitation of the disputed factual issues, and the resolution of matters that are not even related to the constitutional controversy.

Recognizing that "the experience gained from implementing the measure recommends its improvement," the rapporteur ordered the lifting of the suspension of ongoing proceedings before the first-instance courts and the Regional Labor Courts. In practice, instruction, hearings, and trials will resume normally in the ordinary instances.

The suspension, however, was not lifted. It was postponed to a later procedural stage. According to the decision, the stay should be observed after the exhaustion of the jurisdiction of the Regional Labor Court, with the case remaining suspended until the final judgment of Topic 1,389 or further deliberation by the Court. In short: the process can be instructed and judged in the first and second instances, but its progress towards the higher courts will await the final word of the Supreme Court.

The decision is based on criteria of proportionality, in harmony with legal certainty, procedural economy, and the reasonable duration of the process. The rapporteur also highlighted that the measure does not compromise the authority of the Court's future decision nor the uniformity of constitutional interpretation, since any divergences will remain subject to the binding precedent to be subsequently established. The decision will be communicated urgently to the Presidency of the Superior Labor Court and to all Regional Labor Courts.

For companies and their legal departments, the decision means that cases that were stalled will resume, with deadlines, hearings, and evidence gathering. It's time to map the portfolio of cases affected by Topic 1.389, identify those whose proceedings had been interrupted, and define priorities for action.

There is also a strategic aspect that cannot be overlooked: the binding precedent to be established by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) will affect these cases. The decisions issued now by the lower courts will remain subject to the understanding that the Supreme Court consolidates. Therefore, building a technically sound and well-documented defense, attentive to the factual reality of each contract, is more than just advisable; it is crucial for preserving business interests.

We will continue to monitor developments regarding Topic 1.389 and its impact on the management of corporate labor litigation.