Adverse treatment after a report: what the Federal Labor Court clarified
Protection against retaliation is linked to reporting or public disclosure. According to Germany’s Federal Labor Court, merely knowing about a possible violation is not sufficient.
The decision of December 4, 2025
Case 2 AZR 51/25 concerned, among other issues, a dismissal during the statutory qualifying period. The Federal Labor Court (BAG) clarified that, for the prohibition of retaliation to apply, the disadvantage must result from the report or disclosure. In that case, the statutory presumption of this connection was rebutted.
For the employee’s benefit, the court assumed that the report had been made to the correct internal office and that the reported events fell within the HinSchG. It therefore did not decide those two issues as a general matter.
What the burden-of-proof rule does
Where its requirements are met, section 36(2) HinSchG makes it easier to establish that a work-related disadvantage was a response to a report. It does not provide blanket protection against every dismissal. The requirements for a protected report still need to be assessed, and the other party can rebut the presumed connection.
Practical steps for whistleblowers
Clarify the appropriate reporting channel and carefully retain available information about the timing, recipient, and content of your report. An acknowledgment of receipt can help reconstruct events later.
If you receive a dismissal notice or suffer other adverse treatment, have your personal rights assessed promptly. The ombudsperson is the contact for the compliance report; this does not automatically include personal representation in an employment dispute. Other employment-law protections may matter independently of the HinSchG.