Enforcing jurisdiction
Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation

Employee – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA ArbGKaiserslautern25 January 2022Germany
final
Court Ruling

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 a former employer must stop contacting potential employers about a former employee's alleged misconduct. This decision protects the privacy rights of employees and emphasizes the need for proportionality when sharing personal information. It highlights the balance that must be struck between an employer's right to share information and an employee's right to privacy.

What happened

The court ordered a former employer to cease contacting potential employers about a former employee's conduct.

Who was affected

The former employee, who was the subject of the misconduct claims, was affected.

What the authority found

The court found that the employer's claims did not meet the necessary standards for sharing personal information with future employers.

Why this matters

This ruling reinforces the importance of protecting employee privacy and the need for employers to carefully consider the implications of sharing personal information. Companies should ensure that any information shared is substantiated and necessary.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 1004 (1) BGB
§ 823 Abs. 1 BGB
Art. 1 GG
Art. 2 GG
Decision AuthorityArbG Kaiserslautern

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 21 March 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

Plaintiff A is a former employee of defendant C. Defendant C accuses plaintiff A of a series of misconducts in connection with their employment, namely: (1) to have made false statements when concluding their emplyoment contract, (2) to have breached data protection regulations by having her husband draw up the duty roster and, thereby, providing an unauthorized person access to the personal data of other employees, (3) to have instructed other employees to provide care services to clients beyond the allowed limited field of acivity of said employees, (4) to have repeatedly postponed appointments with new clients without reason, and (5) to have stopped working for several afternoons without permission to pursue private activites. Plaintiff A disputes these assertions and claims that after the termination of the employment relationship between plaintiff A and defendant C, defendant C made an active effort to contact potential future employees of plaintiff A to inform them of the disputed misconducts and is filing for injunctive relief. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist from actively approaching potential future employers of the plaintiff to make their claims. It pointed out that both the protection of personality guaranteed by Article 1 and 2 of the German basic law as well as the legal basis for the processing of personal data of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (the legitimate interests of a data controller or a third party) require a balancing of interests between (1) the rights of a former employer to provide information to a new employer about the performance and conduct of a former employee and (2) the personality and data protection rights of an employee. It held that while in principle employers are entitled to forward information regarding the employee's performance and conduct, none of the claims, to the extent that they were substantiated by defendant C, met the necessary proportionality threshold of the German basic law and the GDPR to entitle defendant C to actively contact potential future employers of plaintiff A.

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Details

Ruling Date

25 January 2022

Authority

DPA ArbGKaiserslautern

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Employee - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: