{"id":11731,"date":"2025-06-08T08:02:33","date_gmt":"2025-06-08T08:02:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=11731"},"modified":"2025-07-13T15:25:44","modified_gmt":"2025-07-13T15:25:44","slug":"lag-koeln-kein-kuendigungsschutz-bei-unzureichender-mitteilung-der-schwangerschaft-urteil-zu-%c2%a7-17-muschg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/cologne-no-protection-against-dismissal-in-case-of-insufficient-notification-of-pregnancy-judgement-on-\u00a7-17-muschg\/","title":{"rendered":"LAG Cologne: No protection against dismissal in case of insufficient notification of pregnancy - judgement on \u00a7 17 MuSchG"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span>Judgement of the Cologne Regional Labour Court of 17 April 2025 (Ref. 6 SLa 542\/24)<\/span><\/h3>\n

<\/span>Legal certainty in the event of dismissal and pregnancy: clarification of employees' duty of notification<\/span><\/h3>\n

At the centre of the recent ruling by the Cologne Regional Labour Court was the question of the conditions under which the special Protection against dismissal<\/a> for pregnant women in accordance with Section 17 of the Maternity Protection Act (MuSchG) - particularly in conjunction with the provisions of the Dismissal Protection Act (KSchG). The judgement is of great importance for employers and employees alike, as it specifies key aspects of the timely notification obligation and the time limits for taking legal action.<\/p>\n

As Law firm for labour law<\/a> in Cologne, we would like to explain the legal background, the court's reasoning and the practical implications of this judgement in a structured manner.<\/p>\n

<\/span>1. facts of the case - termination during (alleged) pregnancy<\/span><\/h3>\n

The plaintiff, a veterinary assistant, received ordinary notice of termination on 27 July 2023. It was not until more than four months later, on 15 December 2023, that she filed an action for protection against dismissal, invoking the special protection against dismissal under Section 17 MuSchG. She claimed to have been pregnant at the time of the dismissal. She had previously reported the pregnancy - albeit initially mathematically - by means of certificates and notifications.<\/p>\n

The defendant employer denied both the pregnancy at the time of termination and proper notification thereof.<\/p>\n

<\/span>2. legal assessment - requirements for special protection against dismissal (\u00a7 17 MuSchG)<\/span><\/h3>\n

Pursuant to Section 17 (1) MuSchG, the dismissal of a woman during pregnancy is invalid if the employer was aware of the pregnancy at the time of the dismissal or is notified within two weeks of receipt of the dismissal. This protection against dismissal also applies if the employer is not subject to the general protection against dismissal (e.g. in companies with fewer than ten employees, as in this case).<\/p>\n

The LAG Cologne is based on the following key points:<\/p>\n

<\/span>a. Calculated vs. biological pregnancy<\/span><\/h4>\n

The case law of the Federal Labour Court (BAG) assumes that a pregnancy begins arithmetically 280 days before the expected date of delivery (BAG, judgement of 24 November 2022 - 2 AZR 11\/22). This purely mathematical consideration is only sufficient for protection against dismissal if the employer becomes aware of this specific pregnancy in good time.<\/p>\n

In the present case, the first medical certificate indicated a date of birth that would have mathematically established a pregnancy only after receipt of the notice of termination (30 July 2023) - i.e. too late.<\/p>\n

<\/span>b. Obligation to notify: \"This\" pregnancy must be notified<\/span><\/h4>\n

The court expressly emphasises that it is not sufficient for the employee to have notified any pregnancy at any time - rather, the specific pregnancy existing at the time of termination must be notified. An earlier pregnancy that later turns out to be a miscarriage, for example, does not provide protection for a new pregnancy that started later, even if the two notifications are close together.<\/p>\n

The notification of 17 July 2023 demonstrably did not refer to the pregnancy that led to the birth in May 2024. Subsequent certificates, which mathematically suggested an existing pregnancy at the time of termination, were also only sent weeks to months after receipt of the notice of termination - and therefore not in due time within the meaning of Section 17 (1) MuSchG.<\/p>\n

<\/span>c. No knowledge, no communication, no protection<\/span><\/h4>\n

The LAG Cologne therefore stated:<\/p>\n