![\"AGG_GeschuetzteRechtsgueter\"](\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/09\/AGG_GeschuetzteRechtsgueter.png\")
<\/p>\nDarmstadt Labour Court, 12.06.2014, Ref.: 6 Ca 22\/13<\/b><\/p>\n
The General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) came into force on 18 August 2006 and is intended to encourage employers to ensure that their operational processes and structures and all labour law contracts and measures are compatible with the AGG. If this is not the case, there is a risk of claims for damages against the employer.<\/p>\n
Discrimination is unlawful, inter alia, in relation to access to employment and self-employment (i.e. the recruitment of employees), employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissal conditions, in particular individual and collective agreements and measures relating to the performance and termination of an employment relationship and career advancement.<\/p>\n
The following diagram illustrates the protected interests of the General Equal Treatment Act: <\/p>\n
In the above-mentioned judgement of the Darmstadt Labour Court, the court had to decide whether an applicant's application had been unsuccessful solely because she was overweight and whether this constituted discrimination giving rise to damages within the meaning of the AGG. The plaintiff, born in 1972, demanded compensation from the defendants 1) and 2) as well as damages for pain and suffering in the amount of 30,000 euros. According to the plaintiff, the reason for this claim was discrimination in the application process. She claimed that she was discriminated against due to her alleged excess weight and thus an assumed disability within the meaning of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG). Alternatively, she based her claims on a violation of her general personal rights.<\/p>\n Defendant 1) is a registered association that operates as a patient organisation at federal level. It pursues exclusively non-profit objectives in the field of health promotion. The members of the organisation are made up of self-help groups, individual members and sponsors. Defendant 2) was deputy chairperson and acting managing director of the association and thus involved in the recruitment process of the plaintiff as managing director.<\/p>\n As part of the application process, the defendant (2) and another member of the Management Board conducted an initial interview with the plaintiff. A further interview was arranged. However, before the planned second interview, the second defendant wrote the applicant an email in which she asked why the applicant was not of normal weight. She also expressed concern that the plaintiff in her current physical condition was not a suitable role model for the club members, who were to be motivated by the club to lead a healthy lifestyle.<\/p>\n The plaintiff then did not attend the second interview. She claimed that the defendant (2) had told her husband that the plaintiff did not have to attend the interview if she did not want to give any reasons for her excess weight.<\/p>\n The plaintiff demanded an annual salary as compensation, but at least 30,000 euros. She argued that this compensation should also have a deterrent effect. The defendants rejected the allegations and emphasised that the plaintiff was not rejected because she was allegedly overweight, but because she had failed to attend the second interview without giving a reason. Compensation in the amount of 30,000 euros would jeopardise the existence of the association.<\/p>\n The Darmstadt Labour Court dismissed the claim. It found that there was no discrimination on the basis of disability, as the plaintiff was neither disabled nor was her excess weight considered a disability in the legal sense. A claim for compensation for pain and suffering due to a violation of general personal rights was also rejected. The court saw no unlawful interference with the plaintiff's right of personality. Even if the external appearance had been taken into account in the decision-making process, this did not constitute unlawful interference. A claim for compensation or damages for pain and suffering was therefore denied.<\/p>\n Source: Darmstadt Labour Court Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty.<\/b> Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.<\/p>\n If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 \u2013 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.<\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n<\/span>Case Background<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>The association and its members<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>The job interview and the controversy<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>The arguments of the parties<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/span>Decision of the labour court<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n