A sexual harassment dismissal is a serious step, but it is not always justified as a summary dismissal. The Heilbronn Labor Court ruled on the validity of such a dismissal in its judgment dated June 18, 2026 (Ref. 8 Ca 57/26). The plaintiff, an employee since 2016, had filed suit against her summary dismissal, with an alternative ordinary dismissal. The court partially upheld the claim: the summary dismissal was invalid, but the ordinary dismissal effective April 30, 2026 was upheld. We explain the background and what employees should be aware of.
The sexual harassment dismissal Case Before the Heilbronn Labor Court
The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant since March 1, 2016 in office communication, warehouse management, order processing, and assistance. Her last gross monthly salary was 3,117 euros. The defendant employs around 200 people and operates multiple sites; the plaintiff worked at a site with 12 to 13 employees.
On January 14, 2026, a two-day annual kick-off event took place with 115 employees attending. After afternoon workshops, a New Year’s celebration with dinner began at 6 p.m. During this celebration, the plaintiff allegedly sexually harassed colleagues — this was disputed between the parties. The defendant then issued a summary dismissal, alternatively an ordinary dismissal, by letter dated January 21, 2026. The plaintiff filed an unfair dismissal claim on February 4, 2026.
The Labor Court held that the summary dismissal was not justified because, despite multiple incidents of harassment, a balancing of interests showed that no further harassment was to be expected during the notice period. The ordinary dismissal effective April 30, 2026 was however deemed valid. Court costs were allocated two-thirds to the plaintiff and one-third to the defendant. The dispute value amounted to 9,351 euros. An appeal has been lodged with the Baden-Württemberg Regional Labor Court (Ref. 21 Sa 71/26).
What Constitutes Sexual Harassment Under the AGG?
The General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) defines sexual harassment in Section 3(4) as unwanted sexually determined conduct that violates the dignity of the person concerned. This includes unwanted sexual advances, touching, lewd remarks, showing pornographic images, or unwanted invitations with a sexual background. The decisive factor is that the conduct is unwanted and has a harassing effect.
Not every tasteless remark constitutes sexual harassment. Severity and frequency matter. A single incident may suffice if it is particularly serious. With multiple incidents, the threshold is crossed more quickly. In the present case, the court appeared to proceed from multiple instances of harassment, without this needing to be conclusively clarified.
Summary Dismissal vs. Ordinary Dismissal
A summary dismissal requires an important reason under Section 626 BGB that makes continuation of the employment relationship until the end of the notice period unreasonable for the dismissing party. It must be issued within two weeks of becoming aware of the relevant facts. An ordinary dismissal, by contrast, can be issued without an important reason if it is socially justified and the statutory notice period is observed.
In employment law: the more serious the misconduct, the more likely a summary dismissal comes into consideration. In such allegations, a summary dismissal is often issued because the relationship of trust appears destroyed. However, the Heilbronn Labor Court shows that a dismissal for sexual harassment does not necessarily have to be summary.
Dismissal for Sexual Harassment: The Balancing of Interests
The Heilbronn Labor Court’s decision makes clear that every dismissal — whether summary or ordinary — requires a comprehensive balancing of interests. The employer’s interest in terminating the employment relationship is weighed against the employee’s interest in its continuation. Particular account is taken of the severity of the breach of duty, the employee’s previous conduct, length of service, age, and maintenance obligations.
In the present case, the severity of the allegations initially spoke in favor of a summary dismissal. However, the court found that, prognostically, no further harassment was to be expected during the notice period. This prognosis can arise from various circumstances: insight and remorse, the fact that the incident occurred at a one-off celebration, or changed circumstances. If the employer therefore need not expect the employee to misbehave again, an ordinary dismissal may suffice.
Important: The prognosis must be based on concrete indications. A mere assertion by the employee that they will improve is insufficient. The court will examine credibility and the circumstances of the individual case.
What the Ruling Means for Employees
Anyone wishing to challenge a dismissal for sexual harassment should prepare thoroughly. Even if the allegations are serious, the dismissal may be invalid — for example because the two-week deadline for summary dismissal was not met, because a warning would have been required, or because the balancing of interests favors the employee. An unfair dismissal claim must be filed with the Labor Court within three weeks of receipt of the dismissal. Further information on the unfair dismissal claim can be found in our guide to unfair dismissal claims.
If you are affected, you should immediately consult a specialist lawyer for employment law. They can assess whether the dismissal is valid and what prospects a claim has. Even if you dispute the allegations, a claim is often worthwhile. The Heilbronn Labor Court shows that even with multiple instances of harassment, a summary dismissal does not automatically apply.
Note: If you have received a dismissal, you should also observe the checklist for the first few days. It helps you avoid missing any deadlines.
Severance and Settlement in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings
Many unfair dismissal proceedings end in a settlement in which the employer pays a severance payment. The amount depends on various factors, such as length of service, salary, and the claim’s prospects of success. A statutory severance payment exists only in certain cases, for example in operational dismissals under Section 1a KSchG, if the employer offers it in the dismissal letter. In conduct-related dismissals — as in the present case — a severance payment is not automatically owed but can be agreed in a settlement.
If you are seeking a severance payment, our guide Severance Payment After Dismissal provides an overview of the key principles. Also read our article Conduct-Related Dismissal and Severance Payment to learn when a higher severance payment may be possible.
Conclusion: Not Every Sexual Harassment Justifies a Summary Dismissal
In summary, the ruling shows that a dismissal for sexual harassment does not necessarily have to be summary. Even with multiple instances of harassment at a company celebration, an ordinary dismissal may suffice if no further incidents are expected. Employees should therefore defend themselves against a summary dismissal, even if the allegations are serious. An appeal against the judgment has already been lodged — it remains to be seen whether the Regional Labor Court confirms the decision. In any case: seek legal advice early and observe the deadlines for an unfair dismissal claim.
Note: This article is for general information purposes only and does not replace individual legal advice. For a free initial assessment of whether litigation funding may be an option for your case, you can contact RechtStark.