Search form

Brazilian Labor Courts Continue to Emphasize Importance of Non-Compete Clause Limitations

By John L. Sander and Maya Atrakchi
  • April 20, 2018

A recent Brazilian labor court ruling clarified the procedural requirements for employers drafting non-compete clauses in employment agreements.

Although the Brazilian Federal Constitution establishes “freedom of work,” and the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law 9.279/1996) prevents an employee from disclosing an employer’s confidential information without prior authorization for an indefinite period, there is no regulation formally addressing non-compete clauses. Thus, procedural requirements for valid non-compete clauses have been established entirely through case law.

According to Brazilian labor court precedent, a valid non-compete agreement must include the following four elements:

  1. Time limitation (up to 24 months);
  2. Geographic limitation;
  3. Subject limitation; and
  4. Compensation for the restriction.

In Omar de Carvalho Paiva Neto v. Vallourec Tubos do Brasil S/A, no. 1000588-51.2016.5.02.0065, the plaintiff, a sales manager with his former employer for 18 years, found that, upon leaving the job, he was subject to a non-compete clause preventing him from working in the same sector for two years. The company, however, did not compensate the former employee for the work restriction, as required by case law.

The plaintiff’s attorney argued the validity of a non-compete agreement requires that “the worker must be compensated in some manner so that he can maintain his standard of living.”

The company argued that upon termination the employee was released from the non-compete obligation and, consequently, he had no restriction to work and no compensation was due.

The labor court held in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the company to pay the former employee at his previous salary for the full period of the 24-month restriction. The court also found there was no formal release of the non-compete obligation; thus, the non-compete restriction was in force and the former employee must comply with the restriction.

In addition, another recent Brazilian labor court ruling invalidated a non-compete clause on grounds that the geographic limitation was overly broad. Pedro Silveira Junior v. Trading Importação e Exportação Ltda, no. 1066-03.2014.5.12.0022.


Although the recent Brazilian labor court rulings do not alter the court’s approach to non-compete clauses, they remind employers that valid non-compete clauses require inclusion of the four elements: time limit, geographic limit, subject limit, and compensation for the restriction.

The four elements must be reasonable when considering the activities performed by the employee and the employee’s impact if he or she works for a competitor.

On the compensation for the restriction, courts tend to consider a reasonable amount as one equivalent to the last monthly remuneration received by the employee for each month of the restriction. A lower remuneration is considered reasonable only if the restriction as to subject and location are very limited.

Our colleague Gabriela Lima Arantes at the Brazil law firm Tozzini Freire, a member of the L&E Global alliance, co-authored this article.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

April 15, 2019

Revamp of Mexico’s Federal Labor Laws: What U.S. Employers Need to Know

April 15, 2019

Employers with operations in Mexico must brace themselves for significant changes in the labor laws in their workplace. Mexico is expected to pass legislation that will effectively overhaul the country’s labor laws to a standard similar to that in the United States. The changes will reshape Mexico’s labor relations for a generation.... Read More

January 7, 2019

2019: The Year Ahead for Employers

January 7, 2019

Over the past year, state and local governments responded in a variety of ways to national policy, and the midterm elections painted a picture of what’s in store for employers in 2019 and beyond. Jackson Lewis’ annual report outlines upcoming issues, trends, legislation and regulations employers need to be aware of in the coming year... Read More

August 27, 2018

Non-Compete Covenants Must be Reasonable for Preliminary Injunction, Nevada Supreme Court Affirms

August 27, 2018

A non-compete agreement in Nevada “must be limited to the geographical areas in which an employer has particular business interests,” the Nevada Supreme Court has affirmed. Shores v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Aug. 2, 2018). The Court also concluded that when an employer seeks to enforce a non-compete... Read More