Proof Is Everything: German Hospital Loses Wrongful Termination Case Over Unsubstantiated Clocking Claims
29.06.2026 - 03:05:38 | boerse-global.de
A German hospital that fired its lead senior physician on allegations of time fraud has been ordered to keep her on the payroll — because it could not prove the charges. The June 28 ruling from the Regensburg Labor Court underscores a fundamental principle: without evidence, a dismissal crumbles.
The University Hospital in Regensburg had accused the doctor, a leitende Oberärztin, of faking her working hours. But in court, witnesses confirmed she had been ready and willing to work throughout the disputed periods. With a dispute value of €50,000, the hospital must now continue employing her. The case shows how severely the burden of proof tilts against employers when misconduct claims lack substance.
Legal experts distinguish two basic scenarios. If a serious breach of duty is proven, immediate dismissal is likely and severance pay prospects shrink, explains Berlin-based attorney Alexander Bredereck. But if the accusations turn out false, an employee’s chances of landing a sizable severance package through a protection-against-dismissal lawsuit increase sharply.
A similar outcome played out in Gotha, where the municipal-owned KulTourStadt Gotha GmbH lost a case against a former managing director. The company had based the termination on an unsubstantiated email correspondence. In the settlement, the manager pushed through his demands, and procedural costs alone were estimated at a minimum of €25,000.
Formal Hurdles Employers Must Clear
Labor law specialist Dominic Hauenstein stresses that before any dismissal, the works council must be formally heard. Suspicion-based firings and ordinary dismissals are subject to specific deadlines. Ignoring these rules often renders the termination invalid.
Employees who challenge a firing must act fast — but also smart. Dr. Utz Anhalt points out that workers have a duty to mitigate damages. If an employee willfully fails to accept reasonable alternative work, the claim for continued wage payment (Annahmeverzugsentgelt) can be lost. The Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) requires the employee to document unsuccessful job applications. Yet the Baden-Württemberg Regional Labor Court clarified that no willfulness exists when the employer only reveals job offers later in the court proceeding.
Mass-Dismissal Rules Refined
Even procedural miscues can torpedo a termination. But the Federal Labor Court issued a nuanced clarification in late June. A ruling dated 25 June 2026 holds that a dismissal remains valid if the error in the mass-layoff notification process does not undermine the procedure’s purpose and the employment agency can still perform its oversight duties. That judgment offers employers a sliver of breathing room — as long as the mistake is minor and does not obstruct the agency’s work.
