The Supreme Federal Court (STF) ruled on Wednesday, June 3, that the minimum age requirement created by Brazil’s 2019 pension reform for special retirement benefits is unconstitutional. The decision concerns workers exposed to harmful agents and came in a lawsuit filed by the National Confederation of Industrial Workers (CNTI). The Court found that forcing insured workers to wait until reaching a minimum age would extend their time in risky or unhealthy jobs, undermining the protective purpose of the special retirement rule.
The case challenged changes introduced by Constitutional Amendment 103/19, which altered the rules for special retirement. Before the reform, workers exposed to hazardous conditions could retire after meeting the required period of exposure. The new rule added a minimum age requirement, and also barred the conversion of special time into common time for periods after the amendment. CNTI argued that these changes weakened a constitutional benefit designed to protect health and physical integrity, and said they violated human dignity and the right to reduced workplace risk.
The vote that prevailed was from Justice André Mendonça, who took a middle position. He agreed that the pension system may adopt measures to preserve financial balance, but said the minimum age requirement was incompatible with the purpose of special retirement. In his view, workers who have already completed 15, 20, or 25 years in harmful conditions should not be forced to remain longer in that environment. At the same time, Mendonça upheld the ban on converting special time into common time and upheld the new calculation method for the benefit.
Chief Justice Luís Roberto Barroso, who served as rapporteur, voted to dismiss the claim and defend the constitutionality of the reform. He argued that Brazil’s pension system faces growing pressure from population aging and higher life expectancy, and that minimum age rules are consistent with international practices and help prevent early retirements. Barroso also said Congress has room to make technical adjustments to maintain actuarial balance. Justices Gilmar Mendes, Alexandre de Moraes, Cristiano Zanin and Luiz Fux followed Barroso.
Justice Edson Fachin dissented more broadly, saying the reform’s restrictions weaken the constitutional protection given to workers exposed to harmful agents. He said special retirement is preventive in nature and is meant to remove the worker from unsafe conditions before long-term exposure causes damage. Justice Rosa Weber joined that view. Justices Nunes Marques, Dias Toffoli and Cármen Lúcia supported the partial approach, agreeing that the minimum age was unconstitutional but that the conversion ban and new calculation formula could remain in force.
With the ruling, the STF partially granted the action and struck down only the minimum age requirement for special retirement, while preserving the other reform changes.
