Quevedo & Ponce - Noticias Legales
The notification of disability to the employer is not a requirement for special compensation in the event of an unjustified dismissal: Binding judicial precedent in Ecuador
- January 21, 2025
- Quevedo & Ponce
Resolution No. 001-2025 of the National Court of Justice of Ecuador strengthens the protection of labor rights for workers with disabilities or those responsible for individuals with disabilities in the case of unjustified dismissal.
Labor judges and courts are no longer required to verify whether the employer was notified of the worker’s disability or if the worker is registered as a substitute in order to order the payment of the special severance pay provided for in Article 51 of the Organic Disability Law. This regulation refers to the right to compensation equivalent to 18 monthly salaries, calculated based on the highest salary the worker received, in cases of unjustified dismissal.
Key points of the resolution:
No prior notification to the employer required: It is no longer necessary for the employer to have been notified about the worker’s disability or for the worker to be registered as a substitute to request the severance pay.
Only applicable requirements:
– There must be an unjustified dismissal.
– The worker must have a disability or be responsible for someone with a disability.
Protection for workers with disabilities:
This precedent applies to individuals with disabilities, defined as those with permanent limitations in performing essential daily life activities due to physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments, as outlined in the Regulation of the Organic Disability Law.
Implications of the ruling:
- For workers: Their right to request special severance pay in the case of unjustified dismissal is strengthened, simplifying the legal process.
- For employers: The ruling imposes greater responsibility on managing employee information and complying with labor regulations.
At Quevedo & Ponce, we assist companies and workers to ensure compliance with legal provisions and protect labor rights. Contact us for advice on this important precedent and its impact on the labor field.
Más Artículos
Avoid Fines which rank from 2 to 20 Basic Salaries! – Gender Equality Plan for Companies in Ecuador
The Equality Plan must be registered before July 31, 2025, with the Ministry of Labor, or fines ranging from 2 to 20 basic salaries will be imposed on companies and public institutions that fail to comply with the law. This Plan ensures equal treatment and opportunities between women and men in the workplace, promoting inclusion and aiming to eliminate discrimination.
¡Evita multas de 2 a 20 salarios básicos! – Plan de igualdad laboral para compañías
El Plan de Igualdad, debe registrarse antes del 31 de julio de 2025 ante el Ministerio del Trabajo, o se impondrán multas de 2 a 20 salarios básicos a las compañías e instituciones públicas que no cumplan con la ley. Este Plan garantiza el mismo trato y oportunidades entre mujeres y hombres en el ámbito laboral, promoviendo la inclusión y buscando eliminar la discriminación.
“Bimbo” Brand Rejected in Switzerland: The Importance of Cultural Perceptions in Trademark Registration
In the world of intellectual property, trademark protection involves not only legal aspects but also the social impact of the terms used. A recent case in Switzerland highlights how a trademark can be rejected if its name has immoral or insensitive connotations towards specific social groups.
Marca “BIMBO” Rechazada en Suiza: La Importancia de las Percepciones Culturales en el Registro de Marcas
El impacto social de los términos en las marcas va más allá de lo legal. Un ejemplo reciente es el rechazo de la marca “BIMBO QSR” en Suiza, donde “Bimbo” se considera ofensivo en alemán. Este caso subraya la necesidad de evaluar las sensibilidades culturales al registrar una marca, especialmente para empresas con proyección internacional.
Administrative Tribunal of Quito Protects the Rights of a Designation Of Origin Registered in the European Union and WIPO
Quevedo & Ponce successfully acted on behalf of the Consorzio Produttori e Tutela della DOP FONTINA in response to a lawsuit filed by an Ecuadorian company, which primarily argued that FONTINA was not registered in Ecuador. However, the Administrative Litigation Tribunal located in the Metropolitan District of Quito upheld the challenged administrative act, citing the risk of consumer confusion and applying Decision 486 of the Andean Community, emphasizing the importance of protecting designations of origin, even without formal registration in Ecuador.
