The Mannheim Labor Court has clarified the boundaries of the workplace bullying ruling in a decision dated June 11, 2026 (Case No. 5 Ca 139/25), making clear that not every conflict automatically qualifies as bullying. The case involved a clerical employee who sued over alleged bullying by colleagues and supervisors, asserting various claims ranging from the employer’s duty of care to a risk assessment and vacation entitlements.
Workplace Bullying Ruling: Definition and Legal Classification
The term “mobbing” (workplace bullying) is not statutorily defined in German labor law. However, case law has established a widely accepted description: bullying exists when colleagues or supervisors engage in systematic, recurring behavior over an extended period that violates the dignity of the targeted person and creates a hostile or degrading environment. Typical examples include constant criticism, harassment, social exclusion, inappropriate work assignments, or verbal attacks.
Legally relevant provisions include the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG), particularly Section 1 AGG, which prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, gender, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual identity. In addition, the contractual duty of care plays a central role, derived from Section 618(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB). The employer is obligated to protect employees’ health and shield them from harassment and bullying.
It is crucial to understand: not every workplace conflict constitutes bullying. Conflicts are inevitable to some degree when people work together. The line into unlawful behavior is crossed only when the conduct aims to or results in violating employees’ dignity and creating an environment characterized by intimidation, hostility, and humiliation. The Mannheim Labor Court emphasized this distinction in its workplace bullying ruling.
The Mannheim Labor Court Decision: Case Overview
In the decided case, a long-serving clerical employee sued her employer, a German state, alleging bullying by female colleagues and supervisors. She demanded various measures: a risk assessment, cessation of specific behaviors, and vacation entitlement despite existing incapacity for work. The court dismissed the action in full.
The plaintiff was recognized as a severely disabled person with a degree of disability of 30 and had applied for an increase to 50 and equal status. She had worked in administration since 1982, most recently as a case officer in the personnel department. According to her account, she suffered significant psychological distress which she attributed to her colleagues’ conduct.
The labor court found no basis for the requested measures. It held that the incidents described by the plaintiff were insufficient to prove systematic bullying. Nor does an individual employee have a claim to a risk assessment, because under Section 70(3) of the Baden-Württemberg State Personnel Representation Act (LPersVG BW), the works council holds the right of initiative. Thus, the individual employee lacks an independent legal basis for such a claim.
When Does Bullying Exist? The Court’s Guidelines
The Mannheim Labor Court specified the criteria for legally relevant bullying in its decision. The decisive factor is that the behavior occurs systematically over a longer period and creates a hostile, degrading, or intimidating atmosphere. Isolated conflicts or unpleasant situations are not enough.
The court clarified that workplace conflicts can be processed subjectively in different ways. Not every psychological or physical condition resulting from a conflict simultaneously constitutes bullying. The threshold is crossed only when the conduct violates the targeted person’s dignity and creates an environment shaped by hostility and humiliation. This objective approach protects employers from excessive claims while giving affected employees clear guidance on when they can take legal action.
In practice, this means: anyone asserting workplace bullying must document concrete incidents that occur systematically over an extended period. Individual unpleasant encounters or one-time criticism do not suffice. The affected person’s subjective perception is not solely decisive; what matters is an objective assessment of the total circumstances.
Your Rights When Facing Bullying: Duty of Care and Risk Assessment
If you experience workplace bullying, you do have rights. The employer is obligated under the duty of care to protect you from harassment and health hazards. This includes the duty to intervene when bullying is known — for example, through warnings, transfers, or other suitable measures. In severe cases, even extraordinary dismissal of the perpetrator may be considered.
However, an individual claim for a risk assessment does not exist under the Mannheim Labor Court’s decision. The risk assessment is the employer’s responsibility within occupational health and safety, and in workplaces with a works council, it falls under the council’s right of initiative. As an individual employee, you cannot directly demand that such an assessment be created for your workplace. You can, however, alert the works council or employer and request a review.
If you encounter such incidents, you should first seek a discussion with your supervisor or HR department. Document all incidents in writing with date, time, persons involved, and witnesses. If the employer does not respond, you can contact the works or personnel council or initiate legal proceedings. A dismissal protection action may become relevant if you resigned due to bullying or were dismissed. For details, see our comprehensive guide to dismissal protection actions.
Vacation During Incapacity for Work: What the Ruling Says
Another point of dispute concerned whether the plaintiff could take vacation while certified unfit for work. The labor court clarified that vacation and incapacity for work are mutually exclusive. This workplace bullying ruling also reinforces that procedural matters must be assessed separately. Vacation can only be granted when an obligation to work exists from which the employee is released. As long as the employee cannot perform the contractually owed work — i.e., is unfit for work — the vacation entitlement cannot be fulfilled.
This means: if an employee is on sick leave, they cannot simultaneously take vacation. The vacation entitlement remains and can be taken after recovery or in the following year. This legal position is anchored in the Federal Vacation Act and confirmed by the Federal Labor Court’s case law. The Mannheim Labor Court reiterated these principles in its decision.
For employees, it is important to know that incapacity for work does not forfeit the vacation entitlement. If you fall ill during vacation, the sick days are not counted against your vacation, provided you properly prove the incapacity. This rule protects your recovery time and prevents you from losing vacation due to illness.
Conclusion: What Affected Employees Can Do Now
The Mannheim Labor Court’s decision shows that workplace bullying claims face high hurdles in court. Not every conflict is legally actionable bullying, and the burden of proof lies with the employee. However, anyone genuinely suffering from systematic harassment should not hesitate to assert their rights.
The key steps: document all incidents, seek dialogue with supervisors or the works council, and obtain legal support if needed. A specialist lawyer for labor law can assess whether your case crosses the bullying threshold and what claims you can pursue. If you fear or have received a dismissal, a dismissal due to sexual harassment — a related issue — may serve as a reference case.
RechtStark as a litigation funder can review the financing of a labor law proceeding if you are considering legal action. We typically cover attorney and court costs so you bear no financial risk. Contact us for a non-binding review of your case.
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.