The judges noted that the driving without a license occurred off public roads, that the accident did not cause serious damage, that no alcohol test was carried out, and that the worker had a clinical history of anxiety. Company ordered to pay compensation of more than R$40,000.
The Supreme Court of Justice declared unlawful the dismissal of a worker from a company in Vila Nova de Gaia who, without driving licensedrove an employer’s van into the firm’s private courtyard and crashed into an external wall.
For the STJ, although the conduct was reprehensible, the sanction applied was disproportionate given the proven facts and the consequences of the incident.
The case occurred in July 2022, when the employee returned from an external service as a passenger. At the company’s facilities, decided to drive the car in the parking lot and, in a reversing maneuver, caused minor and superficial damage to the vehicle.
The manager, alerted by the bang, confronted the employeewho would later be fired. According to , the person responsible for the company said he had detected signs of exaltation and strong odor of alcohol.
The Supreme Court emphasizes, however, that no test was carried out blood alcohol level, so it was not demonstrated, with the required legal certainty, that the worker was drunk or unable to work.
The judges also valued the fact that driving without a legal license occurred off public roads, and the accident did not cause serious damage. Therefore, they understood that there were disciplinary alternatives less severe than dismissal.
The company also mentioned a second episode, from August 2022, in which the worker responded in an exalted manner and “screaming” to the manager during an appraisal meeting.
The STJ recognized the violation of the duty of civilitybut considered that the language used was not insulting to the employer and framed the behavior within the employee’s clinical history of anxietydiagnosed since 2017.
The Supreme Court’s decision contradicts the ruling of the Porto Court of Appealswho in April 2025 had ruled in favor of the company, considering that the conduct had irreparably undermined the employer trustaggravated by a previous 15-day disciplinary suspension.
The STJ, however, understood that the accusation of recidivism was generic and insufficiently contextualized. As the dismissal was illegal, the company was ordered to pay the employee a compensation exceeding 40 thousand euros.
