An employee who holds a position of high trust and repeatedly breaches their supervisory, control, and loss-prevention duties can be validly dismissed - even in absence of a warning - by ordinary termination, ruled the Labor Court of Offenbach am Main on November 25, 2025 (Case No. 1 Ca 136/25). But note: The key findings of this decision cannot be readily applied to every individual case
*where only the masculine form is mentioned in this article, the feminine / diverse form is also included
ArbG Offenbach (Labour Court), verdict of 25th November 2025 - 1 Ca 136/25
Facts of the case
The parties dispute the validity of a immediate dismissal, alternatively an ordinary termination, of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was employed as General Counsel/Chief Legal Officer at a corporate parent company. In October 2023, a whistleblower report concerning irregularities in the production process was submitted, which was initially investigated internally and later externally. After completion of the investigation, the defendant terminated the employment relationship summarily, alternatively by ordinary termination, on the grounds that the plaintiff had breached his supervisory, control, and loss-prevention duties.
On November 25, 2025, the Labor Court of Offenbach am Main partly upheld the Chief Legal Officer’s unfair dismissal claim with respect to the summary dismissal. In all other respects, the claim was dismissed.
Reasons for the decision
The summary dismissal was ineffective because the notice period for termination pursuant to Section 626(2) of the German Civil Code (BGB) was not observed, and the alleged breach of duty was not sufficiently serious. In contrast, the ordinary termination was deemed valid by the labor court, as the plaintiff had breached his supervisory, control, and loss-prevention duties over an extended period. These duties did not arise from an explicit contractual agreement, but rather from the employee’s general duty of loyalty toward the employer and from his senior position, which is reflected, not least, in his high remuneration. The plaintiff breached his supervisory and control obligations by remaining inactive and additionally failing to comply with the procedural rules. According to the court, a prior warning was unnecessary in light of the severity of the breaches and the unreasonableness of having to tolerate them.
Conclusion & practical tip
The present case is distinguished by the fact that the plaintiff held a senior position of trust, arising both from his role as General Counsel/Chief Legal Officer and from his high remuneration (a base salary of approximately €29,000 per month). The key considerations underlying the decision cannot therefore be readily applied to situations in which the employee in question neither holds a comparable managerial and trusted position nor receives a corresponding level of remuneration. In particular, the fact that a prior warning was exceptionally deemed unnecessary in the context of a conduct-related dismissal cannot be generalized or applied to every individual case.
It remains to be seen whether an appeal will be filed against the judgment.
​
Further blog posts on the topic: Invalid Termination​​ and Immediate Dismissal
Author of this article: Janina Aue, Lawyer & Mediator
Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss how we might work together.
