Mr Fábio José Marino Duarte

Fábio José Marino Duarte

Lawyer biography

Fábio counsels clients on a wide range of labor and employment matters, including employee benefits and executive compensation, termination of employment agreements, employment policies and handbooks, outsourcing, and workforce reductions. He routinely represents employers in high-stakes labor litigation claims, including collective and class actions, and in more standard employment litigation claims, such as harassment, misclassification issues, and breaches of restrictive covenants. He also has experience with collective bargaining, harassment investigations, and issues arising from corporate transactions. Fábio holds an LL.M. degree from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (2017) and interned at a major labor and employment solutions firm in the U.S.


Updates

Employment & Benefits

How to avoid overtime costs: overview of compensatory time off agreements
Brazil | 23 May 2018

In Brazil, employees who work overtime are entitled to statutory premium pay at one-and-one-half times the regular rate. In the past, the courts often voided compensatory time off agreements and granted overtime payment claims to employees on the grounds that their employer had failed to comply with legal requirements. However, the 2017 labour reform introduced more flexible requirements, which should curb litigation on compensatory time off agreements and encourage their use.

Paternity leave extended from five days to 20 days
Brazil | 20 April 2016

Law 13,257/2016 was recently enacted, extending paternity leave from five days to 20 days. The law is part of a project launched by the government to protect children and is restricted to employees who work for companies enrolled in the Citizen Company Programme.

Superior Labour Court rules that employee is entitled to purchase company stock
Brazil | 10 February 2016

The Superior Labour Court recently ruled on a case filed by an employee who was dismissed eight months before completing the vesting period established in the company's stock option plan. The court ruled that the dismissal was unlawful, as the company had maliciously intended to prevent the employee from purchasing stock. The employee was granted indemnification in lieu of the stock option.