No tolerance for threats and defamatory statements at work

Authors: Verena Braeckeler-Kogel, MAES (Basel) and Meike Christine Rehner

Threats against superiors and serious insults may justify dismissal for cause. Written statements that go beyond the bounds of permissible freedom of expression may also constitute a breach of duty warranting a formal warning.

The Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Regional Labour Court has ruled that aggressive and threatening behaviour towards a superior can justify dismissal for cause. Furthermore, statements in an email that are grossly defamatory may constitute a breach of duty subject to a formal warning, despite the protection afforded by freedom of expression.

Under Section 626(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), the termination of an employment contract for cause requires the existence of important grounds on the basis of which the employer cannot reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship until the end of the employee’s notice period. Serious breaches of duty in dealings with superiors or colleagues may constitute such grounds. These include, in particular, threats, aggressive behaviour and serious insults that disrupt harmony in the workplace. Whether a termination for cause is valid in a particular case, however, depends on the specific circumstances and a comprehensive weighing up of interests.

The Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Regional Labour Court has ruled that threatening a superior can justify dismissal for cause. The case in question involved a production worker who, during a night shift, had approached his supervisor in a fit of anger and thrown two boxes filled with capsules onto the floor right next to his feet. The court also upheld an earlier warning letter issued in respect of offensive remarks made in an email to the management and the HR department. The ruling shows that both aggressive behaviour in face-to-face interactions and offensive remarks made by email can have consequences under employment law.

Background

The claimant had been employed by the defendant as a production worker since 2015. In October 2023, he sent an email to the management and the HR department in which he complained about them in an offensive tone. As a result, he received a formal warning, against which he later took legal action.

In May 2025, a conflict broke out once again during a night shift. After the employee’s supervisor had ordered a change to the production process due to an operational disruption, the claimant approached him in a rage and threw two boxes filled with capsules at his feet. He then moved so close to him that his superior feared the situation might escalate further. The employer subsequently dismissed the claimant with immediate effect. The labour court initially ruled that the dismissal was invalid. On appeal, the Regional Labour Court ruled otherwise, declaring the summary dismissal to be valid and also upholding the earlier warning.

Key Issues

The Regional Labour Court regarded the claimant’s conduct as a serious breach of his obligations under his employment contract. The defining factor was the overall situation, which consisted of his aggressive behaviour, the throwing of the boxes and the threatening proximity he created with his line manager. For the purpose of the assessment under employment law, it was not decisive whether the claimant’s conduct also constituted a criminal offence. Rather, it was sufficient that his conduct breached the duty of consideration under section 241(2) of the German Civil Code (BGB) and caused his line manager to fear a further escalation. Due to the seriousness of the incident, the court considered that the employer could not reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship until the end of the notice period.

The court also considered the warning letter regarding the email from October 2023 to be justified. Whilst freedom of expression under Article 5(1) of the Basic Law (GG) does protect strong criticism of one’s employer and superiors, it does not permit every form of dispute. Where statements are primarily offensive and derogatory, they may cross the line of what constitutes permissible criticism. The court considered this to be the case here. In doing so, it took into account the offensive tone of the email and the fact that it was addressed to several people. The remarks therefore went beyond objective criticism and also breached the claimant’s obligations to act with due regard.

The ruling shows that aggressive behaviour towards superiors can justify dismissal without notice. A previous warning regarding similar misconduct may support a subsequent dismissal but does not automatically render it valid. The specific circumstances of the case and the balancing of interests are always decisive. In the case at hand, a complaint against the non-admission of an appeal on points of law is still pending before the Federal Labour Court, although the acceptance rate of such a motion is low in practice.

Practical Point

• Employers should document threats, aggressive behaviour and serious insults promptly and identify any potential witnesses.
• Termination without notice may be justified even in the absence of a proven criminal offence if the conduct constitutes a serious breach of employment contract obligations.
• Freedom of expression also protects harsh criticism, but not, without restriction, grossly defamatory or purely libellous attacks on superiors.
• When evaluating written statements, particular attention should be paid to word choice, context, circulation and the opportunity to review the text before sending it.
• Employers should always assess the proportionality of the action and carry out a comprehensive weighing-up of interests before issuing a dismissal for serious misconduct. Previous relevant warnings may play a role in this regard.