Newsblog | Law firm Haas and colleagues

In its ruling of July 31, 2025 (case no. 6 AZR 18/25), the Federal Labor Court ruled that employment contracts that end automatically when the standard retirement age is reached do not fall under the protection against discrimination in Section 4 (2) TzBfG. Background to the case An employee was employed on a fixed-term contract and claimed that she was discriminated against in comparison to permanent employees and civil servants because

On April 3, 2025, the Federal Labor Court (BAG) issued a groundbreaking ruling (case no. 2 AZR 178/24): In the event of the ordinary dismissal of a severely disabled employee within the six-month waiting period, during which the Dismissal Protection Act (KSchG) does not yet apply, there is no obligation to carry out a prevention procedure in accordance with Section 167 (1) SGB IX. Key contents of the ruling No obligation

The judgment of the Cologne Higher Labor Court of July 9, 2025 (case no. 4 SLa 97/25) marks an important precedent in German labor law, which makes it clear how far employers' duties to protect go, especially when managers burden the employment relationship with insulting, derogatory and sexist statements to such an extent that it is no longer psychologically reasonable for the person concerned. This

In May 2025, the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Labor Court (LAG) sent a clear signal: If a tattoo causes an infection and the employee is unable to work as a result, the entitlement to continued payment of wages no longer applies - because the inability to work is self-inflicted. Judgment of May 22, 2025 (Ref. 5 Sa 284 a/24). Refusal to continue to pay wages in the event of tattoo inflammation A nursing assistant had her