How to Know if Your Public Sector Dismissal Was Illegal in Bolivia

First Key Question: Were You Really a Trust Employee?

The legal analysis should not focus on the title of the position or the form of appointment, but on the functions actually performed.

If the public servant carried out tasks such as:

• Drafting reports
• Providing technical or legal advice
• Performing operational duties
• Supporting an authority without decision-making power

Then, according to Constitutional Judgment 1146/2025-S2, it is likely that the person should not be classified as a trust employee.

This element is decisive in determining whether labor protection applies.

Second Question: Did You Have Decision-Making Authority?

The central criterion for identifying a trust employee is the exercise of authority within the institutional structure.

A trust employee is generally characterized by:

• Making relevant decisions
• Supervising staff
• Representing the institution
• Participating in strategic management

If these conditions were not present, the dismissal may be legally challengeable.

Strengthened Constitutional Protection in Certain Cases

The Political Constitution of the State recognizes situations of special protection linked to the right to work.

These include:

• Parents with children under one year of age
• Pregnant women

In these situations, there is reinforced job stability protection, which prevents dismissal during the protected period and allows the use of constitutional remedies.

Burden of Proof: The Public Entity’s Obligation

Constitutional Judgment 1146/2025-S2 establishes that the burden of proving trust employee status lies with the public entity.

It is not enough to merely claim that the position was freely appointed. The institution must prove:

• The functions actually performed
• The employee’s level of decision-making authority
• Their role within the institutional structure

If these elements are not proven, the dismissal lacks constitutional support.

Prior Analysis Before Dismissal: An Essential Requirement

One of the most important points developed by Constitutional Judgment 1146/2025-S2 is the need for a prior functional analysis before dismissal.

It is not admissible to assume that a public servant is a trust employee solely because of the manner of appointment. The absence of this analysis may amount to a violation of fundamental rights.

Practical Case Assessment

A dismissal may be considered illegal when several of the following elements are present:

• Absence of decision-making functions
• No staff under the employee’s supervision
• Performance of technical or support duties
• Lack of institutional justification
• Existence of special constitutional protection

These factors help determine that the employee was not a trust employee and should have enjoyed job stability.

Rights That May Be Claimed

When the illegality of the dismissal is established, constitutional protection mechanisms may be activated and rights may be claimed, such as:

• Payment of back pay
• Recognition of labor benefits
• Family-related allowances
• Rights linked to social security

Constitutional Judgment 1146/2025-S2 confirms that these rights may be enforced when trust employee status is not proven.

A Common Mistake That Limits the Exercise of Rights

A recurring problem is that many public servants do not challenge their dismissal because they assume that free appointment eliminates any possibility of a claim. This perception prevents the activation of legal mechanisms that could restore or repair their rights.

In summary, a dismissal in the public sector may be illegal when it is not proven that the employee exercised trust functions, when their duties were technical in nature, or when special constitutional protection was in force. Constitutional Judgment 1146/2025-S2 establishes that the analysis must focus on the employee’s actual functions and not on the form of appointment, making it possible to legally challenge many dismissals.