Colombia: Supreme Court Expands the Scope of Pre-Retirement Employment Stability (Decision SL2600-2025)
Introduction: The Origin of Pre-Retirement Protection
The origin of pre-retirement employment stability (fuero de prepensionado) can be traced back to Article 12 of Law 790 of 2002, which established a specific protection for public servants who were three (3) years or less away from meeting the age and service time requirements to qualify for an old-age pension. The purpose of this protection was to prevent their pension rights from being frustrated as a result of institutional restructuring processes.
With the extension of this concept to the private sector, the Constitutional Court defined the scope of the pre-retirement condition in Decision SU-003 of 2018. In that ruling, the Court held that protection applied to workers who were three (3) years away from meeting the age requirement and had not yet completed the required number of contribution weeks, but did not extend to those who, despite being within three (3) years of reaching the retirement age, had already completed the minimum required weeks.
In the private sector, the development of this protection has been based primarily on Constitutional Court case law. In Decisions T-326 of 2014 and T-357 of 2016, applying the principle of equality, the Court held that pre-retirement protection should also cover private-sector workers close to retirement, defined as those who are three (3) years or less away from meeting either the age requirement or the minimum number of contribution weeks necessary to access an old-age pension.
Decision SL2600-2025: Reinterpretation of the Scope of Protection
On 19 December 2025, the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued Decision SL2600-2025 that reinterpreted the scope of pre-retirement protection. In a specific case, the Court extended enhanced employment stability to a worker who had already completed the minimum number of contribution weeks required to qualify for an old-age pension but was still three (3) years away from reaching the statutory retirement age, thereby, departing from the Constitutional Court precedents referred to above.
According to the Supreme Court, the ultimate purpose of this protection is to prevent the worker from facing a period of economic marginalization prior to being included in the pension payroll. In this context, the worker’s right to remain employed must prevail in order to ensure a dignified transition and subsistence during the last three (3) years prior to acquiring the old-age pension.
The legal reasoning of the decision is based on the view that enhanced employment stability protects not only pending contributions and the right to access an old-age pension, but also the vulnerability faced by a person who is close to obtaining such pension. Under this approach, not only the recognition of the pension enjoys special constitutional protection, but also the transitional period leading up to the effective granting of the old-age pension.
From this perspective, the Court considers it unacceptable to argue that the age requirement may be met at a later time without the existence of an ongoing employment relationship, since in such circumstances the worker is placed in a situation of vulnerability, with a disproportionate and adverse impact on their life project, minimum subsistence, and the economic security of both the worker and their family.
Current Understanding of Pre-Retirement Protection
In light of this new interpretation, pre-retirement protection no longer operates exclusively when termination of employment prevents the worker from acquiring the pension right due to the lack of required contribution weeks. It also applies as a safeguard intended to prevent a disproportionate and adverse impact on the worker’s life project, minimum subsistence, and economic security in cases where the employee has already completed the required contribution weeks but has not yet reached the statutory retirement age.
Under this approach, the condition of being a pre-retirement worker may arise in scenarios such as: (i) when the worker is three (3) years or less away from meeting both age and contribution requirements; (ii) when the worker is three (3) years or less away from meeting the age requirement but has already completed the minimum contribution weeks; or (iii) when the worker is three (3) years or less away from completing the contribution weeks but has already reached the required age, depending on the specific circumstances and the risk of affecting the effective access to the pension.
Conclusions
Decision SL2600-2025 marks a significant shift in the judicial understanding of pre-retirement employment stability in Colombia. By extending protection to workers who have already met the contribution requirements but are still within three years of reaching retirement age, the Supreme Court broadens the scope of enhanced stability beyond the traditional focus on pending contributions. This new approach emphasizes the protection of the transitional period toward retirement and the prevention of situations of vulnerability prior to pension recognition. For employers, this development increases the relevance of carefully assessing termination decisions involving employees close to retirement age, as the risk of triggering reinforced employment stability protections is now broader than under the previous constitutional case law framework.
