Mutual-termination agreements face closer scrutiny for vulnerable workers
Termination of the employment relationship by mutual consent. Evidence produced at trial must be weighed from an intersectional perspective when the worker is in a situation of vulnerability.
Official heading (Spanish): TERMINACIÓN DE LA RELACIÓN LABORAL POR MUTUO CONSENTIMIENTO. DEBEN VALORARSE CON PERSPECTIVA DE INTERSECCIONALIDAD LAS PRUEBAS DESAHOGADAS EN JUICIO, CUANDO SE ADVIERTA UNA SITUACIÓN DE VULNERABILIDAD DE LA PERSONA TRABAJADORA
The ruling
A worker in a vulnerable situation sued for unfair dismissal. The employer raised termination by mutual consent, backed by a signed agreement, a ratified settlement receipt, expert evidence and the worker's testimony, and won. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that, beyond construing the worker's claims liberally, the judge must weigh that evidence from an intersectional perspective to confirm the consent was free and genuine.
Our take
A formally complete file no longer guarantees that a mutual termination will hold. If the worker shows conditions of disadvantage, the court will look at how the signature was obtained, not just whether it exists. In our experience, agreements ratified before the Conciliation Center or the labor court hold up better than private documents. Termination should include a payment reflecting statutory entitlements, a clear explanation and access to advice. The ruling does not define vulnerability, which leaves room for broad interpretations.
What to do
- Ratify termination agreements before the Conciliation Center or the labor court.
- Pay amounts reflecting statutory entitlements and record the explanation given.
- Identify vulnerability factors before negotiating an exit.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- (II Región)2o.2 L (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032276
- Published
- June 12, 2026
- Area
- Labor and social security
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
Prepared by Artegia for information only; not legal advice. Headings in English are unofficial translations. The official text is the one published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación or the TFJA journal.