Wage differences for workers with disabilities may give rise to constructive dismissal

There is a silent trend in employment relationships that, when not handled with due care, can produce relevant and hard-to-reverse legal consequences. Wage differences — often treated internally as legitimate compensation adjustments — take on an entirely different dimension when tied to sensitive criteria, such as the condition of a person with a disability.

This was precisely the context analyzed by the Regional Labor Court of the 4th Region. In the specific case, a worker with a disability — initially hired for operational activities — began performing administrative duties in the maintenance department. Despite carrying out tasks equivalent to those of other colleagues, his pay remained lower. The company argued that there was a distinction in the complexity of the activities performed by other employees, but it was unable to demonstrate this adequately during the proceeding.

This point deserves heightened attention: not every wage difference automatically constitutes an irregularity. Labor legislation allows compensation distinctions based on objective criteria — such as productivity, technical perfection or time in role — under article 461 of the CLT. The problem arises when those criteria are not clear, documented or effectively demonstrable.

When justification does not exist or cannot be proven, the discussion moves beyond wage equalization and is analyzed through the lens of discrimination. And when a person with a disability is involved, the analysis tends to be even more rigorous, in light of the principle of equality and the guidelines of the Disability Inclusion Act (Law 13.146/2015).

In the case judged by TRT-4, the court recognized that the wage difference had no objective justification and was related to the worker's condition. From there, it recognized not only the right to reparation but also the occurrence of presumed moral damage.

This aspect is especially sensitive for companies: presumed moral damage, or in re ipsa, does not require the worker to prove concrete harm. The discriminatory conduct itself is considered sufficient to characterize the violation. This significantly broadens the company's exposure, reducing the room for defense based on the absence of proof of actual damage.

In addition, the court recognized constructive dismissal, on the grounds that the employer's conduct compromised the continuity of the employment relationship. In practice, constructive dismissal carries the same effects as dismissal without cause, with all the corresponding financial implications: prior notice, FGTS plus the 40% penalty, severance amounts and, in this case, also moral compensation.

The decision reinforces a movement that has been consolidating in the labor courts: the analysis of employment relationships is not limited to the formality of titles and contracts. The Judiciary looks at the factual reality of the duties performed, and does so with heightened attention when vulnerable groups are involved.

For this reason, companies are advised to revisit their internal practices — especially regarding job descriptions, compensation criteria and the alignment between the duties actually performed and the wages paid. This kind of preventive review not only reduces legal risk: it strengthens business decisions and contributes to a more structured and sustainable work environment.

Ultimately, the question is not only about avoiding awards. It is about building practices that withstand the scrutiny of an increasingly attentive Judiciary. And in this scenario, anticipating the problem is invariably more efficient than having to explain it later.