Brazil’s Labor Court has ruled that a cruise operator must compensate a former crew member after requiring HIV test as a condition of employment, calling the practice abusive and discriminatory.
In a unanimous decision, the Seventh Chamber of the Superior Labor Court (TST) ordered MSC Cruises do Brasil Ltda. and MSC Crociere SA to pay R$ 10,000 (around $1,800) in moral damages to a worker hired for a bar support position onboard one of its ships. The court found that demanding an HIV test violated the employee’s constitutional rights to privacy and intimacy.
The crew member was hired as a bar boy, a role involving tasks such as restocking beverages, cleaning bar areas, and collecting glasses. As part of the hiring process, the company required several medical exams, including an HIV serology test, which the court later ruled was unlawful.
The cruise company argued that the testing requirement applied to all employees and was not targeted at the worker individually. They also maintained that the nature of maritime work justified additional medical screenings due to the limited medical resources available onboard.
Lower courts initially sided with the employer. Both the 20th Labor Court of Curitiba and the Regional Labor Court of the 9th Region (Paraná) considered the requirement legitimate, accepting the argument that working at sea warranted stricter health controls.
However, the worker appealed to the Superior Labor Court, which overturned those decisions. Reporting Judge Minister Cláudio Brandão stated that the requirement directly violated a Ministry of Labor ordinance that expressly prohibits HIV testing in any employment-related medical exam, including pre-employment, periodic, return-to-work, job change, or termination examinations.
Brandão emphasized that an HIV test result has no bearing on a worker’s ability to perform the duties of a bar support role, which does not involve biological risk. He also rejected the argument that limited onboard medical facilities justified the test, noting that this limitation does not prevent adequate care for workers living with HIV or other medical conditions.
According to the ruling, requiring the test in this context constituted an illicit and discriminatory act, infringing on the worker’s personality rights. Given the seriousness of the violation and precedents in similar cases, the court set compensation at R$ 10,000.
The decision was unanimous and reinforces existing labor protections prohibiting discriminatory medical requirements in hiring practices.
