Regulatory update
Dismissing a worker with reinforced job stability without authorization: the costliest mistake
Dismissing a worker protected by reinforced job stability without the Ministry of Labor's prior authorization is not a paperwork slip: the law declares it absolutely ineffective. The employer does not just lose the dismissal; it must reinstate the worker, pay the wages and contributions the worker missed throughout the entire process, and cover a penalty on top of that. A recent circular from the Ministry reopened and unified the criteria used to evaluate these requests, which leaves much of the content circulating on the topic out of date.
Schedule a consultationThe authorization is not optional paperwork, it is the requirement for validity
Article 26 of Law 361 of 1997 establishes that dismissing a person because of their limitation, without the labor authority's prior authorization, is absolutely ineffective. Reinforced job stability does not require a formal disability rating: it covers any worker whose health condition seriously hinders their performance, as long as the employer is aware of it. Without that authorization, the dismissal simply does not exist for legal purposes, no matter how well documented the cause is.
Circular 0049 of 2026: what the employer must prove
On May 22, 2026, the Ministry of Labor issued Internal Circular 0049, which unifies the criteria labor inspectors must follow when resolving these requests, in line with Constitutional Court ruling SU-111 of 2025. The circular starts from a presumption: dismissing a worker with reinforced stability is presumed discriminatory, and it is the employer who must rebut that presumption with solid technical and documentary evidence, not general statements. If the cause invoked is a disciplinary just cause, the employer must prove the facts that constitute it and submit the complete disciplinary file. If the cause is health-related, it must show that it exhausted rehabilitation and reassignment measures, and that the worker's condition remains incompatible with the role despite having exhausted them. The request is filed with the Ministry's Territorial Directorate or Special Office corresponding to the worker's place of residence.
Not even a mutual agreement avoids the authorization requirement
This is the point that surprises companies the most: Ruling SU-111 of 2025 established that reinforced job stability is a certain and indisputable right, and that a mutual termination agreement or a settlement with a worker in a vulnerable health condition is ineffective if it is not, in any case, backed by prior authorization from the Ministry or a judge. Offering a bonus in exchange for signing an agreement does not replace the authorization: the Court requires a neutral third party to assess whether the departure has a discriminatory motive, precisely because the worker's consent in that position is not, by itself, considered sufficient protection.
What it costs to dismiss without the authorization
If the worker sues and the judge finds that the dismissal took place without authorization, the consequence is not a single one: the judge orders immediate reinstatement, payment of the wages, benefits, and social security contributions corresponding to the entire time the separation lasted, plus a penalty that, under the disability protection of article 26 of Law 361 of 1997, equals one hundred eighty days of wages. Reinstatement and the penalty are not alternatives: the judge can order both at once. Requesting the authorization before acting, with the complete file that Circular 0049 requires, costs one administrative request; not requesting it can cost years of back pay.
The question that decides the case is not whether the company has a legitimate cause to end the contract, but whether that cause already passed, before being carried out, through the Ministry of Labor's filter. With Circular 0049 of 2026 that burden of proof went up, not down, and the update almost no one has made yet is checking the disciplinary or medical file against the new criteria before taking the step.