The Federal Supreme Court (STF) has been expanding the space for companies to skip the traditional course of legal actions and go directly to the court to overturn Labor Court decisions. Through specific cases, the court has reduced the role of specialized labor tribunals while also loosening labor laws.

A key turning point in this shift was the legalization of outsourcing core business activities in 2018. But the trend has gained momentum with other topics such as “pejotização”—when companies hire workers as legal entities to avoid labor obligations—and the employment relationships with digital delivery and transport platforms.

This flexibility at the STF has come via “reclamações” (a type of legal claim created to preserve the court’s precedents when they are disrespected by judges or courts around the country). This legal tool allows direct access to the Supreme Court without going through all the stages of the justice system.

Part of the new labor jurisprudence is being shaped through these cases. To enable this, the STF has relaxed its criteria for accepting such claims in labor matters: while only 28% of general claims were ruled valid, 38% of those in labor cases were upheld, according to STF data since 2000.

Many of these decisions validate the pejotização model based on the 2018 precedent that authorized outsourcing—even though the two are distinct.

The issue of pejotização is now awaiting a definitive position from the STF, after Justice Gilmar Mendes suspended all related cases nationwide. On several occasions, the minister has criticized the Labor Court and supported greater liberalization of labor rules.

Even with the suspension in place, some decisions continue to be made. For instance, on April 29, Justice Cristiano Zanin overturned the recognition of an employment relationship involving a lawyer who provided services to a company in 2021, before she was formally hired.

The minister stated that the Labor Court disrespected the STF’s understanding regarding the validity of alternative contractual models. According to him, hiring someone as a legal entity (PJ) is legitimate, especially when there is no vulnerability involved.

Gilmar Mendes has also been active in the legislative arena. The senior justice is working with lawmakers and the financial sector on a bill to reinstate union oversight of employment contract terminations. The goal is to encourage prior conciliation attempts and reduce the number of labor disputes reaching the judiciary.

These developments at the STF come as labor lawsuits have reached record highs in recent years. In 2023, there were 4.19 million new cases filed in the Labor Court, a 28.7% increase compared to the previous year, according to the National Council of Justice (CNJ).

In 2024, the STF received the highest number of “reclamações” ever, exceeding 10,000 for the first time. Of that total, 6,160 were related to labor issues.

The STF has three requirements for accepting a “reclamação.” First, the contested decision must clearly contradict an STF precedent. It also cannot serve as a simple appeal against a lower court ruling.

Second, to comply with due process, adversarial proceedings, and the right to defense, the complaint cannot skip legal stages. Lastly, it cannot be used to reexamine facts and evidence. Thus, this type of case must demonstrate a violation of a specific STF decision.

This mechanism has been frequently used by digital platforms. One such case was brought by Cabify, a ride-hailing app company, against a decision from the 3rd Regional Labor Court. In that case, Gilmar Mendes overturned the second-instance ruling, accepting the company’s argument against the existence of an employment relationship.

But various professions have appeared in these complaints. Justice André Mendonça overturned a second-instance ruling that recognized an employment relationship involving a pizza delivery worker in Rio de Janeiro. The restaurant employed other delivery workers under formal contracts.

There are also similar cases involving street sweepers, delivery workers, beauty salon staff, freight carriers, and real estate agents. In some situations, the ministers send the case back to the lower court for reanalysis, but in others, the STF has fully retried and reversed rulings that had recognized employment ties.

Mirella Franco, from Bonelli Advocacia, attributes this rise in STF rulings on labor matters to the Labor Court itself. In her view, this branch of the judiciary tends to interpret the mere presence of orders as indicative of subordination in an employment relationship—when it could simply reflect organizational structure.

“One of the reasons for bypassing the lower or specialized courts is that Labor Justice today is very paternalistic. That’s no surprise to employers or anyone else. When ruling on employment relationship cases, judges tend to lean heavily on the CLT and focus on subordination,” she says.

Guilherme Feliciano, professor and former president of Anamatra (National Association of Labor Judges), defends the STF’s own role in driving this shift.

“The Supreme Court is gradually becoming a clearinghouse for labor claims. Not because the Labor Courts are being defiant, but because the STF is too flexible in admitting these claims,” he says.

He also notes that this trend has mobilized the legal profession, which sees quicker and cheaper results through this path. “Unintentionally, the STF has even created a new niche of specialized labor litigation, especially employer-side advocacy,” he says.

Feliciano also disputes the idea that the Labor Court or the Superior Labor Court (TST) are biased.

“The TST today is divided into three blocs: one group of justices that emphasizes protecting the weaker party in the contract, another that is more aligned with economic freedom, and a swing group in the middle. That central group ends up deciding most outcomes,” he says.

Cássio Casagrande, constitutional law professor and labor prosecutor, argues that the court is now sending a message of liberalization. “The Supreme Court is wrong to equate outsourcing with pejotização—they are completely different. There’s this avalanche of cases because company lawyers saw that the court opened the floodgates not just for outsourcing (which lawmakers authorized), but also for pejotização,” he says.

Regarding criticism of the Labor Court, he also finds them unfounded. “It’s not that the Labor Court isn’t complying with STF decisions. It is drawing a distinction—saying when a case does not involve outsourcing, which has been settled, but pejotização, which hasn’t,” says Casagrande.