1. Maternity Protection and Enhanced Employment Stability

In Judgment T-333 of 2025, the Constitutional Court, through its Eighth Chamber for Review, upheld the fundamental rights to a minimum standard of living, to work under conditions of equality, and to enhanced employment stability arising from maternity protection of an employee in her breastfeeding period who was dismissed by the user company through a Temporary Services Company.

The Court reiterated that maternity protection extends from the moment the employee becomes pregnant until the end of the breastfeeding period, in accordance with Judgment SU-075 of 2018 and Article 238 of the Colombian Substantive Labor Code, as amended by Law 2306 of 2023, which recognizes the right to paid breastfeeding leave until the child reaches two (2) years of age.

In its decision, the Chamber restated the six guarantees that comprise maternity protection: 

• The general prohibition of dismissal on grounds of pregnancy or breastfeeding.
• The requirement to obtain prior authorization from the Labor Inspector before dismissing an employee during pregnancy or within the eighteen (18) weeks following childbirth.
• The presumption that such dismissal is discriminatory.
• The right to compensation equivalent to sixty (60) days of wages when the dismissal is based on pregnancy or breastfeeding.
• Payment of any maternity leave not granted; and
• The nullity of any dismissal carried out during legally protected leave periods.

Upon reviewing the specific case, the Court concluded that the dismissal was discriminatory and occurred during the claimant’s breastfeeding period, without prior authorization from the Labor Inspector and without evidence of a valid objective cause. The Court further clarified that a project-based or fixed-term-by-task contract does not exempt the employer from the obligation to respect the enhanced employment stability of pregnant or breastfeeding employees.

Accordingly, the Chamber ordered the employee’s reinstatement, her and her child’s enrollment in the General Social Security System, and the provision of a designated space at the workplace for breast milk expression, meeting minimum standards of privacy, hygiene, and safety.

See: Judgment T-333 of 2025 (Constitutional Court).

2. Fecha de estructuración de la pérdida de la capacidad laboral y sustitución

In Judgment T-293 of 2025, the Constitutional Court, through its Seventh Chamber for Review, upheld the fundamental rights to a minimum standard of living, to a dignified life, to social security, and to due process of a person with a disability. The Court found that the denial of the survivor’s pension substitution was based on a formalistic interpretation of the structuring date of the loss of work capacity.

The tutela action was filed against the National Disability Rating Board, Colpensiones, and the Pension and Parafiscal Management Unit (UGPP), after these entities denied the requested benefit on the grounds that the structuring date of the loss of work capacity occurred after the claimant’s parents had passed away. In doing so, they failed to consider the genetic, progressive, and degenerative nature of the claimant’s medical condition and did not conduct a comprehensive assessment of his medical records.

The Court reiterated that the expert opinion issued by the disability rating boards does not constitute the sole admissible or conclusive evidence to determine the date of loss of work capacity for pension purposes. Particularly in cases involving chronic, degenerative, or congenital diseases, the determination of such date must be based on a comprehensive analysis of the origin, progression, and prognosis of the illness, as well as its actual impact on the individual’s work capacity.

In this regard, the Chamber clarified that the competent entities must assess, in addition to the medical expert opinion, the claimant’s medical history, diagnostic tests, technical reports, and any other evidentiary elements that allow identification of the point in time at which the individual effectively reached a loss of work capacity equal to or greater than fifty percent (50%), in accordance with Decree 1507 of 2014.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the National Disability Rating Board to issue a new expert opinion, maintaining the previously established structuring date. It also ordered Colpensiones to recognize, calculate, and pay the survivor’s pension substitution in favor of the claimant, in his capacity as a child with a legally recognized disability.

See: Judgment T-293 of 2025 (Constitutional Court).

3. Pregnancy Discrimination in Recruitment Processes

In Judgment T-165 of 2025, the Constitutional Court, through its Fourth Chamber for Review, upheld the fundamental rights to equality, work, human dignity, and reproductive autonomy of a woman who was excluded from a recruitment process after her pregnancy became known.

The decision was made in the context of a tutela action filed against a private entity. Although the claimant had successfully passed all stages of the recruitment process, her candidacy was rejected at an advanced stage without any objective justification related to her suitability for the position, once her pregnancy was disclosed.

The Court reiterated that the exclusion of pregnant women during pre-contractual stages, in the absence of objective reasons linked to job-related qualifications, constitutes discriminatory conduct in violation of the rights to equality and human dignity. The Court further emphasized that workplace discrimination often manifests through subtle practices that make direct evidence difficult to obtain. Therefore, judges must apply a gender-sensitive approach to overcome structural barriers affecting women, particularly in contexts of vulnerability.

Upon reviewing the specific case, the Chamber concluded that the lack of an objective cause to justify the claimant’s exclusion could only be explained by the existence of discriminatory conduct based on her pregnancy. Accordingly, the Court ordered abstract damages for moral harm against the defendant entity and instructed it to invite the claimant to participate in future recruitment processes consistent with her professional profile. Additionally, the Court mandated the adoption of training measures aimed at preventing discriminatory practices in recruitment procedures.

Likewise, the Court reiterated the obligation of the Ministry of Labor to comply with Judgment T-202 of 2024, which ordered the design of a special mechanism for handling complaints or reports of alleged discrimination in recruitment processes. This mechanism must include an efficient virtual reporting channel, impartial investigation procedures, a support team for complainants, and a framework for the imposition of fines, pursuant to the authority granted under Article 486 of the Colombian Substantive Labor Code.

See: Judgment T-165 of 2025 (Constitutional Court).

The content of this newsletter is merely informative, that´s why it cannot be used under any circumstances as advice on the matter described in it. 

If you need advice on any of the aspects discussed, our team of professionals will be willing to assist you. contacto@jadelrio.com