Germany / rhineland-Palatinate Higher Labour Court / Landesarbeitsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (2. Kammer), Urteil vom 19.11.2021 – 2 Sa 40/21, ECLI:DE:LAGRLP:2021:1119.2SA40.21.00

Country

Germany

Title

Germany / rhineland-Palatinate Higher Labour Court / Landesarbeitsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (2. Kammer), Urteil vom 19.11.2021 – 2 Sa 40/21, ECLI:DE:LAGRLP:2021:1119.2SA40.21.00

View full Case

Year

2021

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Friday, November 19, 2021

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination

Related Bias motivation

Nationality

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Labour Court (Landesarbeitsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz)

Key facts of the case

The parties dispute the validity of an extraordinary termination for reasons of conduct. The plaintiff is employed by the defendant and claims the invalidity of the extraordinary termination without notice issued to him. The defendant employer claims that the termination was justified because the plaintiff had secretly recorded a staff meeting with his supervisor (witness in these proceedings). The plaintiff is of the opinion that he was entitled to do so for evidentiary reasons because he had been discriminated against by his supervisor for years.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The termination proves to be legally invalid because, based on the evidence taken, it must be assumed that the plaintiff was racially insulted by his immediate supervisor over several years. The defendant must accept responsibility for this misconduct, since the witness is to be regarded as a vicarious agent in the contractual relationship between the parties. In addition, the defendant did not counteract the continued discrimination. Taking into account the unrebutted submissions of the plaintiff to his exoneration, the extraordinary termination is not justified after the comprehensive weighing of the mutual interests to be undertaken.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

In proceedings for protection against dismissal, the terminating employer has the full burden of proof and presentation for the existence of a reason for termination. The secret recording of the conversation is an "in itself" suitable breach of duty by the employee, which can constitute good cause within the meaning of § 626 para. 1 of the German Civil Code. However, the defendant had knowledge of the discrimination due to complaints by the plaintiff and nevertheless remained inactive. It is therefore partly to blame for this breach of duty.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

As a result, the termination proves to be invalid both as an extraordinary termination and as an alternative ordinary termination for behavioral reasons.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"Ihr Moslems lügt doch alle. Das steht doch bei euch im Koran. Ihr belügt doch auch eure Frauen. Das dürfen die Moslems [...]." S. 12, Ziffer 36. „Selbst wenn man davon ausgeht, dass auch in der vom Kläger geschilderten Situation keine heimliche Gesprächsaufzeichnung gerechtfertigt war, hat sich der Kläger nach seiner unwiderlegten Einlassung zumindest über die Pflichtwidrigkeit seines Tuns geirrt. Ein darin liegender Verbotsirrtum ist jedenfalls bei der Gewichtung der Pflichtverletzung (als Voraussetzung für eine Kündigung) zu berücksichtigen.“ Seite 15, Ziffer 47. "You Muslims are all liars. It is written in the Koran. You lie to your wives. Muslims are allowed to do that [...]." P. 12, para. 36. “Even if one assumes that no secret recording of the conversation was justified in the situation described by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was at least mistaken about the breach of duty of his actions according to his unrebutted admission. An error of prohibition in this respect must in any case be taken into account in the weighting of the breach of duty (as a requirement for termination).” P. 15, para. 47.

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.