Reinstatement for reinforced job stability: two years to sue

Reinstatement proceedings for reinforced job stability follow the union-immunity procedure and expire in two years: the Court upheld the rule. May the ordinary legislature require that reinstatement claims based on maternity, disability, pre-retirement, workplace harassment or circumstantial immunity be processed like union-immunity cases, with a two-year limitation period? Colombia’s Constitutional Court, in Judgment C-352 of 2026, with Justice Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar as reporting judge, answered yes: article 300 of Law 2452 of 2025, the Code of Labor and Social Security Procedure, is constitutional as regards the challenge for breach of the statutory-law reservation. This article is based on the summary of the decision released in press communiqué 33 of October 28, 2026, which does not state the date of the judgment.

What article 300 of Law 2452 of 2025 provides

Article 300 requires that matters seeking a worker’s reinstatement on grounds of reinforced job stability (estabilidad laboral reforzada) be processed under the procedure of articles 293 to 297, the union-immunity (fuero sindical) procedure, including the following:

Maternity: including the spouse, partner or permanent companion when they lack formal employment.
Disability: immunity on grounds of disability.
Pre-retirement: immunity for workers close to retirement (prepensión).
Workplace harassment.
Circumstantial immunity.

Claims expire two years after the termination of the employment contract. If what is sought is not reinstatement but compensation for damages, the claim follows the ordinary procedure with the general limitation period, under the paragraph of the rule.

The challenge and the decision

The petitioner argued that the rule should have been enacted as a statutory law, because it would comprehensively, structurally and directly regulate the fundamental right to reinforced job stability by establishing the judicial mechanism for reinstatement, under article 152, paragraph a, of the Constitution. The full Court, having found the challenge admissible, upheld article 300 of Law 2452 of 2025 as regards the challenge for breach of the statutory-law reservation.

The Court’s reasoning

The critical point is that article 300 regulates the procedure, not the right: reinstatement is a restorative consequence and is not to be confused with reinforced stability itself. The rule contains three elements: it channels reinstatement claims into a preferential, summary procedure; it sets a two-year limitation period from the termination of the contract; and it sends compensation claims to the ordinary procedure with the general period. These are procedural, instrumental rules: they neither create nor define the right, and its holders, guarantees, requirements and consequences remain in their legal and case-law sources.

In the words of the Court’s summary: “the regulation set out in article 300 is a legitimate exercise of the ordinary legislature’s power to establish procedures and time limits, which does not breach the statutory-law reservation, because it does not comprehensively regulate reinforced job stability, does not affect its essential core and does not constitute an indispensable mechanism for protecting fundamental rights”.

Restrictive statutory reservation: it is exceptional and exhaustive; what matters is the substantive content, not the label. It applies only if the rule comprehensively and structurally regulates a fundamental right, affects its essential core or creates an indispensable constitutional mechanism. Being related to a fundamental right or regulating a procedure is not enough.
Procedures and limitation periods: the ordinary legislature has wide latitude to regulate procedures, jurisdiction and time limits. Limitation extinguishes the action, not the substantive right; so fixing the period does not determine the content of the right.
Substantive regime untouched: the immunities have been regulated by ordinary laws and case law, and each keeps its own regime. The rule neither unifies those regimes nor changes the requirements for reinstatement.
Tutela not displaced: the reinstatement proceeding is an ordinary avenue of claim and does not prevent resort to the constitutional protection action (tutela) when its requirements are met. The rule does not alter the structure of mechanisms such as tutela or habeas corpus.

The route depending on the claim

Reinstatement on grounds of maternity, disability, pre-retirement, workplace harassment, circumstantial immunity or other immunities: the procedure of articles 293 to 297, the union-immunity procedure. Limitation: two years from termination of the contract.
Compensation or damages only: the ordinary procedure, with the general limitation period.
Urgent protection through tutela: remains available if its requirements are met; the reinstatement proceeding does not exclude it.
Who enjoys immunity and what must be proven: article 300 does not define it; the legal and case-law sources of each immunity continue to apply.

A business example

Hypothetical case with illustrative dates. Distribuidora Andina S.A.S. terminates a worker’s contract on March 15, 2027. She claims reinforced stability on grounds of disability and files a reinstatement claim on September 10, 2027.

Procedure: the reinstatement is processed under the procedure of articles 293 to 297, preferential and summary, not the ordinary procedure.
Limitation: two years from termination, that is, until March 15, 2029. The September 2027 claim is within the period.
If she only sought compensation: it would go through the ordinary procedure with the general limitation period.

Fidelis Advisories’ recommendations

Fidelis Advisories’ own criteria, going beyond the text of the judgment:

Terminations involving immunity: before terminating a contract, check whether the worker may be covered by any of the immunities and document the decision.
Tracking of time limits: keep a register of terminations, because a reinstatement claim may be filed up to two years later.
Companies in liquidation or restructuring: include the risk of reinstatement claims in the analysis of labor contingencies.
Text and currency: consult the full text of the judgment, whose date the summary does not yet state, and confirm that Law 2452 of 2025 is in force before applying it to a case.

Consolidated opinion

Could the ordinary legislature extend the union-immunity procedure to reinstatement claims for reinforced stability and set a two-year limitation period? Yes: article 300 of Law 2452 of 2025 is constitutional as regards the statutory-law reservation challenge, because it only regulates the procedure and the time limit, not the right or its essential core. In the Distribuidora Andina example, reinstatement on grounds of disability follows the preferential procedure and the claim expires two years after termination. The decision resolves only the statutory-reservation challenge.

This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contact us about your specific case.