Category: Arbeitsrecht

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

In its ruling of June 18, 2025, the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG) made a decision that is significant for employment law practice (Federal Labor Court, ruling of June 18, 2025 - 7 AZR 50/24). The central question was whether the fixed term of an employment relationship remains permissible even if the employee in question is elected to the works council during the term of the contract.