Null dismissal for pregnancy or breastfeeding in Peru: what protection the law gives

The real window: pregnancy or 90 days after birth

This is the part almost nobody reads carefully. Ley N.° 31152 amended inciso e) of Article 29 of the LPCL to read:

“El embarazo, el nacimiento y sus consecuencias o la lactancia, si el despido se produce en cualquier momento del periodo de gestación o dentro de los 90 (noventa) días posteriores al nacimiento.” (“Pregnancy, birth and its consequences, or breastfeeding, if the dismissal occurs at any point during the gestation period or within 90 (ninety) days after birth.”)

Three things worth separating:

• The protection covers the entire pregnancy, from the first day of gestation.
• After birth, it extends 90 calendar days, no more.
• The Ley 27240 breastfeeding permit lasts until the child turns one, but that’s a separate right (see paternity leave and the breastfeeding break). The word “breastfeeding” appears in this same clause, but the window that triggers null dismissal is those 90 days after birth, not the full year the permit covers.

The presumption works in your favor

The same inciso e) reverses the burden of proof:

“Se presume que el despido tiene por motivo el embarazo, el nacimiento y sus consecuencias o la lactancia si el empleador no acredita en estos casos la existencia de causa justa para despedir.” (“It is presumed that the dismissal was motivated by the pregnancy, the birth and its consequences, or breastfeeding, if the employer does not prove the existence of just cause for the dismissal in these cases.”)

In other words: if you’re fired within that window, it isn’t you who has to prove the motive was your pregnancy. It’s your employer who has to prove a different, just cause. If they don’t, the dismissal is presumed to be for the pregnancy, birth, or breastfeeding, and it’s null and void.

The requirement that can work against you: prior notice

The same rule sets a condition:

“Lo dispuesto en el presente inciso es aplicable siempre que el empleador hubiere sido notificado documentalmente del embarazo en forma previa al despido y no enerva la facultad del empleador de despedir por causa justa.” (“What is set out in this clause applies provided the employer was notified of the pregnancy in writing before the dismissal, and it does not take away the employer’s power to dismiss for just cause.”)

Two practical consequences:

1. You need to have notified your pregnancy in writing, before the dismissal. A verbal notice, or the employer simply “having noticed,” isn’t enough to trigger this specific presumption — the law requires it to be documented.
2. This protection isn’t an absolute shield. The same sentence makes that clear: it doesn’t take away the employer’s power to dismiss for a real just cause. What the law bans is the pregnancy, birth, or breastfeeding being the motive for the dismissal — it doesn’t protect against a dismissal for an actually proven serious offense.

It extends to the probation period and part-time work

The law closes two common escape routes:

“La disposición establecida en este inciso es aplicable también a la trabajadora durante el periodo de prueba regulado en el artículo 10, así como a la que presta servicios bajo el régimen de tiempo parcial de cuatro o menos horas diarias, dispuesto en el artículo 4.” (“This provision also applies to the worker during the probation period set out in article 10, as well as to one who provides services under the part-time regime of four or fewer daily hours, set out in article 4.”)

Being on probation or working a reduced schedule doesn’t put you outside this specific protection, even though for other purposes (like the unfair-dismissal payout) those arrangements do have different rules.

What remedy the law gives: reinstatement, not just money

This is the most important difference from an ordinary unfair dismissal. Article 34 of the LPCL states:

“En los casos de despido nulo, si se declara fundada la demanda el trabajador será repuesto en su empleo, salvo que en ejecución de sentencia, opte por la indemnización establecida en el Artículo 38.” (“In cases of null dismissal, if the claim is upheld, the worker will be reinstated in their job, unless, once the judgment is being enforced, they choose the payout set out in Article 38.”)

And Article 40 adds what else the judge orders:

“Al declarar fundada la demanda de nulidad de despido, el juez ordenará el pago de las remuneraciones dejadas de percibir desde la fecha en que se produjo, con deducción de los períodos de inactividad procesal no imputables a las partes. Asimismo, ordenará los depósitos correspondientes a la compensación por tiempo de servicios y, de ser el caso, con sus intereses.” (“Upon declaring the null-dismissal claim founded, the judge will order payment of the wages missed from the date the dismissal occurred, with a deduction for periods of procedural inactivity not attributable to the parties. The judge will also order the corresponding CTS deposits and, where applicable, their interest.”)

In other words, if you win the case:

• You are reinstated in your job (it isn’t optional for the employer).
• You’re paid what you missed earning from the dismissal until reinstatement (minus any stretches of procedural inactivity not attributable to you).
• Your CTS deposits for that period are made, with interest.
• Only if you prefer, you can swap reinstatement for the Article 38 payout, once the judgment is being enforced.

This is different from an ordinary unfair dismissal, where the only remedy the law gives is the payout — see unfair dismissal in Peru for that full comparison, including the Article 38 formula and the rest of Article 29’s grounds for null dismissal (union membership, discrimination, and others).

The deadline is still the same: 30 calendar days

Article 36 doesn’t distinguish by type of null dismissal:

“El plazo para accionar judicialmente en los casos de nulidad de despido, despido arbitrario y hostilidad caduca a los treinta días naturales de producido el hecho.” (“The deadline to sue in cases of null dismissal, unfair dismissal, and hostility expires thirty calendar days after the event occurred.”)

Calendar days, not business days. It runs from the dismissal, not from when you find a lawyer. It isn’t interrupted and can’t be waived by agreement, except for being outside the country and unable to enter, or the Judiciary not being operational.

What if you’re pressured to “resign” instead of being fired?

This is a known way to sidestep this protection: instead of a dismissal letter, some employers offer a “mutual agreement” termination or ask for a voluntary resignation letter right when they find out about the pregnancy. Signing either of those documents generally closes the door on claiming a null dismissal, because there’s no longer a dismissal to challenge — there’s an exit you agreed to. Before signing anything on your way out while pregnant or in the period after giving birth, see mutual agreement termination in Peru: what to sign and what not to.

If harassment comes before the dismissal

Sometimes a null dismissal for pregnancy arrives after weeks of pressure, comments, or changed duties meant to push the worker into resigning on her own. If what you’re going through looks more like that than a direct dismissal, also see sexual harassment at work in Peru: how to report it, which covers a different, more immediate reporting channel.

If you’re a foreign worker

Inciso e) of Article 29 doesn’t distinguish by nationality: it protects “the worker,” with no condition on origin. If you’re on payroll under Peru’s private-sector labor regime, this protection reaches you the same as any other worker, including the requirement of prior, documented notice and the same 30-calendar-day deadline to sue.

What this page doesn’t tell you

• We don’t set an official format for the pregnancy notice. The law requires it to be “documented” and “prior to the dismissal,” but no rule was found that requires a specific letter, email, or form. Use whatever means lets you prove the date and that it was received.
• We don’t cover the rules on risky work during pregnancy here (reassigning duties to protect the health of the mother or the fetus during the pregnancy itself, not the dismissal) — it’s a related but different topic this page doesn’t develop.
• We don’t publish a Sunafil fine table for an employer who breaches this protection. We didn’t verify that a specific, quantified infraction exists for this case in the labor-inspection regulation, so this page doesn’t include one.
• We don’t know whether recent case law broadens or narrows the 90-day window. This page is built on the literal text of Ley 31152 as it stood at the time of verification; it isn’t a full survey of later court rulings.