Supermercado Rena Condenado por Homofobia e Assédio a Ex-Funcionário LGBTQIA+

A labour court in Brazil has condemned the Rena supermarket chain following a case involving alleged homophobia, moral harassment, and violation of religious freedom against a former LGBTQIA+ employee in Divinópolis, Minas Gerais. The former employee had the word “Gay” written and highlighted on their registration record and was reportedly compelled to participate in prayer circles.

Supermarket Chain Found Liable

The decision, confirmed by the Regional labour Court of the 3rd Region (TRT-MG), mandates a payment of R$15,000 for moral damages. Rena was also ordered to reimburse undue discounts and pay a labour fine due to irregularities in the termination process.

The TRT-MG upheld the initial court ruling, recognising that the employee experienced continuous discriminatory treatment based on their sexual orientation during their employment from January 2014 to March 2025 at the Divinópolis store.

According to the court’s relator, Justice Lucas Vanucci Lins, the case constitutes moral harassment with presumed moral damage, removing the need for proof of concrete harm given the severity of the events.

A particularly grave element cited by the court was the annotation of the employee’s sexual orientation on their personnel file, with the word “gay” written, and emphasized. The court determined this practice to be discriminatory, violating human dignity and lacking any legitimate purpose within the employment relationship.

“, with its conduct, the defendant violated the claimant’s right to a healthy and sound work environment, especially from a psychological point of view,” the decision states.

The case also included instances of mockery, humiliation, and offensive remarks. “What brings the repercussion to this process is the veiled practice of prejudice due to the claimant’s sexual orientation. He is homosexual. From the beginning, this was highlighted in his registration form. Only after a long time did he learn that the word gay was written in red ink on his registration form, highlighting unnecessary information, because heterosexual employees did not have their sexual orientation identified,” explained attorney Brenda Silva.

Discrimination During Paternity Leave

This practice extended even during the employee’s paternity leave following the adoption of their children, when a supervisor allegedly made demeaning remarks. “They made fun of this situation, making nonsensical connections to women who take maternity leave to breastfeed their children,” Silva clarified.

Religious Freedom Violated

Another key aspect of the condemnation involved the violation of religious freedom. The court acknowledged that the employee was required to participate in prayers at work, even without agreeing with the practice. The TRT-MG determined that imposing religious practices in the workplace, without respecting the diversity of beliefs or the individual’s choice, constitutes an abuse of the employer’s authority.

The attorney stated that over 10 years, the former employee experienced anxiety, “feelings of inadequacy, and contempt.” Despite the absence of overt prejudice, the differentiated treatment and bad taste jokes were evident. The employee sought legal action to repair some of the damage.

Case Publicly Denounced

The case was publicly reported by Divinópolis council member Vítor Costa (PT) in 2025, who stated that the decision delivers justice for the LGBTQIA+ cause. “Sexual orientation does not define character, competence, or professionalism. What happened to this worker is unacceptable and needs to be denounced. LGBTQIA+ rights are human rights, and Justice has made that very clear,” Costa affirmed.

Rena S.A. Released a statement stating: “Casa Rena S.A. Publicly expresses its repudiation of any form of discrimination, intolerance, or prejudice. With 60 years of history, we reaffirm our principles and values, based on ethical conduct, committed to being a fraternal, pluralistic, and unprejudiced company. The labour lawsuit reported in the press is an isolated and controversial case, which still allows for appeal to the Higher Courts, and therefore is not a final decision. The company respects the decision of the TRT-MG, however, it does not agree with the understanding adopted and will continue to appeal so that the truth is restored.”

Frequently Asked Questions

What were the primary reasons for the court’s decision against Rena?

The court found Rena liable due to homophobia, moral harassment, and violation of religious freedom against a former employee.

What specific actions led to the finding of moral harassment?

The court cited the annotation of the employee’s sexual orientation on their personnel file and instances of mockery, humiliation, and offensive remarks.

What is Rena’s response to the court’s decision?

Rena stated they repudiate any form of discrimination and will appeal the decision to the Higher Courts.

How might this case influence workplace practices regarding diversity and inclusion in Brazil?