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 that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 13, 2019

Mexico’s Overhaul of Federal Labor Laws: Updates, Timelines for Employers

August 13, 2019

Substantially overhauling its labor law, Mexico has enacted legislation that prohibits employer interference with workers’ rights, protects employees’ right to join or not join a union, and requires unions to secure employee support. In order to implement these changes, Mexico must create new courts, a new federal agency, and even more... Read More

August 2, 2019

New Jersey Court Brings ‘Clarity and Uniformity’ to Analysis of Restrictive Covenants

August 2, 2019

The New Jersey Appellate Division has clarified the analysis required to determine the effect of restrictive covenant agreements (RCAs) and offered guidance to practitioners drafting RCAs under New Jersey law in a decision on six consolidated actions. ADP, LLC v. Kusins, No. A-4664-16T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 26, 2019).... Read More

May 17, 2019

The EPL Insurance Advisor – May 2019

May 17, 2019

To assist underwriters and claims professionals in assessing emerging employment risks, we are pleased to provide the first issue of our newsletter. The EPL Insurance Advisor highlights topical issues in claims, defenses, and liability risk management developments. 2019 EPLI Trends Report – What Analysts and Underwriters Should... Read More