German Courts Chart Stricter Path for Dismissals Linked to Employee Illness
24.06.2026 - 21:52:18 | boerse-global.de
A recent wave of rulings from German labor courts has sharpened the legal boundaries around dismissals tied to sick leave, placing a heavier burden on employers who try to challenge medical certificates or bypass mandatory reintegration procedures. The decisions, handed down between 2022 and early 2026, clarify when a doctor’s note can be questioned, what constitutes a valid health-based termination, and how far employers can push their authority in related areas such as vacation scheduling.
Doctor’s Note Presumed Valid Unless Employer Can Prove Fraud
The Nordhausen Labor Court (Case No. 3 Ca 438/25) underscored that a properly issued sick note retains a high evidentiary value. In the case at hand, an employee quit her job and simultaneously submitted a medical certificate. When the employer refused to continue paying wages on the grounds that the illness was faked, the court ruled that the company bore the full burden of proof. It must demonstrate concretely that the employee had announced the sick leave beforehand. Without such evidence, the obligation to provide continued wage compensation remains – any doubt favors the worker.
Mandatory Reintegration Process Carries Real Teeth
Under Section 167(2) of the Social Code (SGB IX), employers must offer a “Betriebliches Eingliederungsmanagement” (BEM) – a return-to-work programme – to any employee who is ill for more than six weeks within a single year. The Rhineland-Palatinate State Labor Court ruled on 25 March 2026 (Case No. 6 SLa 180/25) that skipping or mishandling this step can invalidate a dismissal. It found that a termination based on 27 sick days per year was ineffective partly because a prior written warning did not contain an explicit threat of dismissal. The court also noted that when multiple companies operate as a joint establishment, their workforces must be aggregated to determine whether the threshold for protection under the Dismissal Protection Act (more than ten employees) is met.
If an employee refuses the BEM offer, that weakens their legal position. The employer then is no longer required to disprove every conceivable alternative accommodation in court.
Three-Step Test for Illness-Related Dismissal
A termination on health grounds remains legally possible but is subject to strict conditions. The Mecklenburg-Vorpommern State Labor Court upheld an ordinary dismissal of a machine operator who had been absent 40 to 50 days per year over several years (Case No. 5 Sa 56/23). The court found that even varying diagnoses did not invalidate the negative health prognosis. The standard review involves three stages: a negative prognosis for future health, a substantial impairment of business interests, and a balancing of interests that weighs against the employee.
Important safeguards: The Dismissal Protection Act applies only in workplaces with more than ten employees and requires at least six months of tenure. Affected workers must file a lawsuit with the labor court within three weeks of receiving the notice.
Suspicion of Fake Sick Leave: Surveillance Limits and Survey Data
Despite the high protection afforded to medical certificates, abuse remains a nagging issue. A Pronova BKK survey found that roughly 60 percent of employees have reported in sick at least once while actually fit for work. When there is justified suspicion – for example, suspicious patterns of absence or behavior that contradicts recovery – an employer can ask the Medical Service (Medizinischer Dienst) to review the certificate. Hiring a private detective is permissible only when the suspicion is concrete and substantiated.
Behavior-Related Dismissals and Vacation Rights
Misconduct often leads directly to termination. The Hamm State Labor Court upheld the immediate dismissal of a cleaner who took an unauthorised coffee break at a café during working hours (Case No. 13 Sa 1007/22). It classified this as time theft, ruling that not even a prior warning is required in such cases, including when the employee has a severe disability. However, for severely disabled workers, dismissal additionally requires approval from the Integration Office, which must decide on an application for summary dismissal within two weeks – if it fails to, consent is deemed granted.
On vacation rights, the Thuringia State Labor Court decided on 2 March 2026 (Case No. 4 Ta 15/26) that an employer cannot unilaterally limit an employee’s annual leave to two weeks when the worker requests a longer consecutive block. A general staffing shortage does not justify refusal unless specific overriding business needs are demonstrated.
