Colombia: Constitutional Court strengthens protections for employees with health conditions

The reinforced labor stability is considered a protection for an employee under a situation of infirmity intended to maintain the employment relationship. 

Ruling T334 of 2025 focuses on those cases where such stability is applied due to an employee’s health condition. The Constitutional Court reviewed three mandamus (tutela) decisions where certain female employees claimed to have been dismissed from their jobs either directly or by means of induced resignations while they were on medical incapacity or upon receiving a diagnosis, which placed the same under a manifest state of infirmity, reason why the Court held such employee were actually entitled to reinforced labor stability under the terms established under constitutional case law.

In this case the Constitution Court concluded that “the petitioners’ employers had infringed their rights to reinforced labor stability, social security and minimum living wage by removing them from their jobs, whether directly or by means of induced resignations without authorization from the work inspector, despite having submitted several incapacities before such dismissal or undergoing medical treatments in connection with their diagnoses.”

It mentioned the relevant aspects to take into account to determine whether an employee is protected under an immunity arising from the reinforced labor stability. In this regard, the Constitutional Court has provided the requirements that trigger the reinforced labor stability:

•  The worker is in a manifest state of infirmity, that is, the employee effectively has a health condition that prevents or hinders the same from adequately and properly providing their services. Even though this must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the Court has provided certain events that prove the same: the post-employment medical examination discloses a disease; there are medical recommendations at the time of dismissal or a medical incapacity was filed in the days preceding the dismissal; there is a medical incapacity for several days and ongoing at the time of termination of the employment relationship; or there is a diagnosis and applicable treatment for the same.

• The employer is aware: this is proved by, among others, when: “(i) The disease leads to symptoms that make it noticeable; (ii) the employer processed medical incapacities and after the incapacity period, the employee requested leaves to attend medical appointments and such employee must follow recommendations from occupational medicine; (iii) the employee was dismissed during a period of multiple-day medical incapacity regarding a disease that required attending several doctor appointments during the employment relationship; or (iv) the documents submitted as exhibits show that during validity of employment relationship such employee frequently had to go to the doctor´s, submitted medical incapacities and further states that the same advised their employer of their health status.”
• There is not sufficient justification for the dismissal, evidencing that the same is based on discrimination. “The Court has recognized that the right to reinforced labor stability is not absolute insofar as the employer may disprove the presumption of discriminatory dismissal by means of the procedure established under the same for such purpose. Hence, requiring an employer to resort to the labor authority in order to obtain a permit to dismiss an employee who is subject to a manifest state of infirmity due to health reasons is intended to establish whether there is an objective cause for termination of the employment relationship. Failure to fulfill this burden will lead to the presumption of a discriminatory dismissal, which entails assuming that such dismissal was due to the deterioration of the employee’s health.” 

The guarantees afforded under Colombian law to employees in these cases are mainly: the invalidity of the dismissal, the right to continue at the job until configuration of an objective cause that justifies dismissal from the job, the employer’s duty to request the Ministry of Labor authorization to terminate the employment relationship. These guarantees are applicable to any type of contract or modality of employment engagement. The infringement of such right by the employer may lead to obligations such as: the reinstatement of the employee and re-assignation if necessary, training for the new job position, payment of social benefits, vacations and contributions from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement and recognition of an indemnification equal to 180 days of salary[1].

Due to the possible configuration of the aforesaid requirements, the options for terminating an employee under a manifest state of infirmity are reduced to the employee’s resignation, provided such resignation is free and voluntary or authorization from the Ministry of Labor, if it is possible to prove the existence of an objective cause or just cause to terminate such employee’s contract in order to disprove the presumption that the reason to terminate such employment relationship was discriminatory.  

It is important to take into account that in those occasions were termination of the contract arises from resignation by the employee, the Court holds that the same will only be valid, if it is confirmed that the same was a free and spontaneous act of such employee.

The Court further states that in the event it is proved that such resignation was not spontaneous, free from any coercion and arising out of the free will of the employee, it will become necessary to grant a final protection and consequently the Court will decree their reinstatement and payment of salaries, social benefits and other employment-related dues. If it is not possible to establish that such resignation was attributable to the employer, it will be necessary to declare the unsuitability of such action so that such dispute may be decided by the lower court.

If there are any doubts as to the freedom and spontaneity under which the petitioner put forward such resignation, the Court states that it will be necessary to grant a temporary protection ordering reinstatement of such petitioner in the job. As for any financial claims related to the recognition and payment of back wages, as well as the compensation provide under Article 26 of Law 361 of 1997, the same will be refused as these aspects are to be defined in the ordinary labor proceeding which the petitioner will be eventually required to lodge.

It is extremely important to take into account the conditions for configuration of the reinforced labor stability in favor of the employee and the options the employer has to proceed in these cases in order not to fall in any situation which may lead to the obligation of reinstating the employee and paying unforeseen salaries, social benefits, vacations, contributions and indemnifications.