- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 4 Sa 70/20 – Dismissed (Germany, 2021)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A German court ruled that an employer's termination of an employee was unjustified due to improper handling of health data. This case is significant as it underscores the importance of fair processes in employee management.
What happened
An employer terminated an employee after failing to properly conduct a health management process.
Who was affected
An employee who was dismissed after not responding to a health management invitation.
What the authority found
The court found the termination unjustified because the employer did not follow proper procedures for managing employee health data.
Why this matters
This case highlights the need for employers to handle employee health data carefully and fairly. Companies should ensure they follow appropriate procedures when managing employee health issues.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.
Processing notes: national law identified, authority corrected.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
An employee (data subject) was unable to work for more than six weeks within a year due to illness, and the employer (controller) was liable for continued pay during absence. The controller invited the data subject to occupational integration management (BEM) by letter. The aim of BEM is to determine the health restrictions that have resulted in absences from work and to find possibilities of reducing them in the future to avoid dismissal. The data subject did not respond to this invitation, and the controller terminated the data subject's employment. The data subject complained about the correctness of the BEM initiation as they had not received the enclosures named in the invitation letter. The data subject requested that the employment relationship would not be terminated, and the controller was of the opinion that due to the continued payment of wages, it could no longer be reasonably expected to continue the employment. The court found that termination of employment relationship had not occurred, and the controller was ordered to continue employing the data subject. The controller appealed as they considered the judgment to be in error. The court found the termination to be socially unjustified under §1(2) KSchG, which underlines steps for determining the social justifiability of dismissal. The balancing of interests was disproportionate as the controller did not initiate the BEM in an appropriate manner. The court applied Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, according to which the data subject could have voluntarily disclosed their health data defined in Article 4(15) GDPR to the site manager who was not involved in the BET. The court emphasised that in such a case, the data subject should be informed explicitly that the consent is voluntary becuase it is not necessary for implementing the BEM pursuant to Article 7(4) GDPR. However, the site manager was not on the list of members to whom the health data was disclosed. Thus, the data subject could not have known from the
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 4 Sa 70/20 in DE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 4 Sa 70/20 - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: