Gelsenkirchen Labour Court, 06.05.2025, Ref.: 1 Ca 1608/24
When we talk about labour law, we often talk about the big issues: protection against dismissal, equal treatment, rights and obligations of employees and employers. But sometimes the explosive nature of these topics only becomes apparent in concrete stories that make it much clearer how much law and justice are intertwined in working life. A recent example of this is the judgement of the Gelsenkirchen Labour Court (case no. 1 Ca 1608/24, judgement of 6 May 2025). The case sheds light on several aspects at once: the protection of severely disabled employees, the limits of dismissals for operational reasons and the role of prohibitions on discrimination in working life.
Facts
The plaintiff had been working as a commercial employee in an electrical wholesaler since 2017. In 2023, he suffered a serious commuting accident, which led to a long-term inability to work. As a result, he was recognised as having a severe disability with a degree of 50 %. After a lengthy period of illness and reintegration, the employer terminated his employment contract in November 2024 - officially for operational reasons. But that was not the end of the story: another dismissal followed a few months later, this time with the approval of the Integration Office.
The employee defended himself against both dismissals. The court had to decide whether they were effective - and whether the plaintiff was also entitled to compensation under the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG).
The decision at a glance
The court came to a differentiated conclusion:
- The first termination (29 November 2024) was invalid. It was issued in connection with the plaintiff's severe disability and thus violated the AGG's prohibition of discrimination.
- The second termination (19 February 2025) was effective. It was based on new reasons, including a careless WhatsApp message from the plaintiff to customers in which he massively criticised the employer.
- The plaintiff received compensation in the amount of 4,754.39 euros. This was based on Section 15 (2) AGG, as the first dismissal was discriminatory.
Why is this judgement important?
This judgement is an example of how complex the interplay between protection against dismissal, the ban on discrimination and entrepreneurial freedom is. It makes it clear that even if the Dismissal Protection Act (KSchG) does not apply in small companies, this does not mean that employees are unprotected. The AGG and SGB IX (law on severely disabled employees) set important limits here.
You could compare it to a boat: In stormy seas, every little piece of wood that provides stability counts. For severely disabled employees, the AGG is often precisely this piece of wood that prevents them from sinking without protection.
What do we learn from this?
For employees, the judgement means that they should take their rights seriously. A dismissal that is at least partially based on a disability may be invalid. For employers, on the other hand, it is a clear indication that they must take particular care when dealing with severely disabled employees.
Three key lessons for employees:
- Know your rights: A cancellation is not always final. If you have any doubts, you should take legal action in good time.
- Document everything: Emails, conversations, minutes - all of these can be crucial in the process.
- Use support: Representatives for severely disabled employees, the integration office or trade unions are important contacts.
Three important tips for employers:
- Take BEM seriously: Company integration management is not a formality, but a duty.
- Avoid discrimination: Even the appearance that a dismissal is due to a disability can have legal consequences.
- Design clear communication: Honesty and transparency avoid conflicts later on.
A look at the second cancellation
The second cancellation is particularly interesting. It shows that employees also need to be careful. An ill-considered message to customers - written in anger or out of frustration - can have legal consequences. The court considered the WhatsApp message in which the plaintiff accused his employer of "running the gauntlet" and unjustified treatment to be a grossly unobjective attack. Such statements can not only destroy the relationship of trust, but in extreme cases can even justify dismissal.
Practical benefits for the world of work
The judgement warns both sides: Employees and employers. For employees, it is a signal of hope - even in difficult situations, rights can be enforced. For employers, it is a warning signal that formal errors or discriminatory motives can be costly.
At the same time, the judgement underlines the importance of open communication. If the employer had implemented the agreed measures in the BEM, an escalation might never have occurred. And if the employee had voiced his criticism internally instead of publicly, the second dismissal might not have been tenable.
Conclusion
The judgement of the Gelsenkirchen Labour Court is a lesson in how law and humanity can come together - or fall apart - in working life. It shows that protective rights do not just exist in theory, but are effective in practice. But it also shows that employees also bear responsibility when it comes to treating their employer with respect.
In the end, the message is twofold: no one is defenceless in the face of termination - but no one should recklessly risk irreparably destroying trust.
