The case of two VW executives illustrates how closely whistleblower protection dismissal issues can intertwine. The Braunschweig Labor Court ruled on September 23, 2026, in two dismissal protection proceedings against Volkswagen AG – with an outcome that may surprise many employees. The summary dismissal was invalid, but the ordinary dismissal was valid. For the affected managers, this means: they receive back pay for the period between the summary dismissal and the end of the notice period, but must still leave by September 30, 2026. A ruling that illustrates the complex legal situation surrounding whistleblower protection dismissal.
Whistleblower Protection Dismissal: What Protected Whistleblowers Need to Know
The Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) protects individuals who report violations in their company – such as corruption, fraud, or breaches of environmental and occupational safety regulations. Anyone who makes such a report in good faith must not suffer detriment as a result. In particular, a dismissal because of the report is fundamentally impermissible. The protection applies to both internal reports to the designated reporting channel and external reports to authorities.
It is important to understand: the protection is not unlimited. It only applies if the report actually falls under the law – meaning a concrete violation exists that is covered by the HinSchG. Anyone who merely expresses vague suspicions or passes on information that does not fall within the scope of protection cannot automatically invoke it. The form of the report also matters: anyone who knowingly makes false statements loses protection.
In the case of the two VW executives, it is precisely this balancing act that is at issue. Both belong to the upper management circle and were summarily dismissed after a report apparently connected to the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Braunschweig Labor Court had already ruled in a partial judgment in February 2026 that the summary dismissal did not terminate the employment relationship. Now the focus was on the consequential claims.
The Starting Point: Two VW Executives Sue Against Their Dismissal
The two proceedings before the Braunschweig Labor Court have a longer history. The first hearing took place on February 25, 2026, when the court issued a partial judgment as well as an order for evidence and further proceedings. At that time, the court determined: the employer’s extraordinary summary dismissal did not end the employment relationship. However – and this is the crucial point – the employment relationship ends due to an ordinary, timely dismissal on September 30, 2026.
This constellation is typical for many dismissal protection proceedings: the employer issues a summary dismissal that does not hold up in court, but has simultaneously issued an ordinary dismissal that meets the requirements of the Protection Against Dismissal Act. For the employee, this means: they win the first part of the proceedings but ultimately lose their job – just at a later date and with financial claims for the interim period.
On September 23, 2026, the court then negotiated the affected employee’s further claims as well as the employer’s counterclaim. The court awarded the claims for back pay for the period from the summary dismissal until the expiry of the notice period – but only to the extent these claims were already due. A further date for judgment was scheduled to decide on the remaining points.
Summary Dismissal Invalid, Ordinary Dismissal Valid: The Decision
The Braunschweig Labor Court’s decision is a case study in the different requirements for summary and ordinary dismissals. A summary dismissal under Section 626 of the German Civil Code (BGB) requires good cause that makes it unreasonable for the employer to continue the employment relationship until the end of the notice period. Not every breach of duty suffices – there must be a serious breach of the relationship of trust. Especially in a summary dismissal connected to a whistleblower report, the precise balancing of interests is decisive.
An ordinary dismissal, by contrast, only requires a conduct-related, person-related, or operational reason within the meaning of the Protection Against Dismissal Act. The hurdles are lower, the requirements for justification less stringent. In the case of the VW executives, the court apparently considered the summary dismissal disproportionate but viewed the ordinary dismissal as valid.
For employees, this distinction is enormously important. Anyone who receives a summary dismissal should not automatically assume that the ordinary dismissal is also invalid. Employers often examine both variants in advance and issue both dismissals – the summary dismissal as the sharper sword, the ordinary dismissal as a safeguard. In court, one may be invalid while the other is valid. That is exactly what happened here.
Back Pay: What Employers Must Pay When They Do Not Employ
Back pay for the employer’s default of acceptance is one of the most important financial claims after an invalid dismissal. The basis is Section 615 BGB: if the employer defaults by not accepting the work performance – for example, by not employing the employee despite an ongoing employment relationship – they must continue to pay the agreed wages. This applies even if the employee does not work elsewhere.
In the VW case, the Braunschweig Labor Court awarded back pay for the period from the summary dismissal until the expiry of the notice period. Concretely, this means: the employer must pay back wages for the months in which the executives were not employed despite the ongoing employment relationship. For senior management executives, this can quickly amount to a five- to six-figure sum.
Important to know: the claim for back pay only exists if the employee was ready to perform – meaning they actually offered their labor. Anyone who simply stays at home after a dismissal and does not make themselves heard risks losing the claim. That is why it is crucial to offer continued employment in writing after a dismissal and to demonstrate readiness to work. How to proceed best is explained in our guide Dismissal Received: Checklist for the First Days.
Also note: back pay is offset against other benefits, such as unemployment benefits or sickness benefits. It is therefore not an additional gain, but a compensatory payment for the lost employment. Nevertheless, it is existential for many employees because it bridges the financial gap until the end of the notice period.
What the Case Means for Executives in the Management Circle
The VW case has particular significance for executives who belong to the upper management circle. The interplay between whistleblower protection dismissal and termination is especially relevant for this group. This group enjoys no special dismissal protection – on the contrary: managerial employees within the meaning of the Works Constitution Act are exempt from many protective provisions. They cannot call upon the works council, have no co-determination rights regarding their own transfer, and are often subject to special contractual arrangements.
At the same time, executives are particularly exposed when it comes to internal reports. A manager who reports grievances risks not only their employment relationship but also their reputation and future career. The whistleblower protection is meant to apply precisely here – yet in practice, courts carefully examine whether the report is actually protected and whether the dismissal was based on it.
For executives, this means: they should know their rights and obligations precisely. A dismissal following a report is not automatically invalid – it depends on the circumstances of the individual case. Anyone affected as a managerial employee should inform themselves early about the typical pitfalls in severance packages for managerial employees. The question of whether a severance payment is realistic at all depends heavily on the negotiating position – and that position is significantly strengthened by a successful dismissal protection lawsuit.
First Steps After a Dismissal: Deadlines, Review, Strategy
Anyone who receives a dismissal – whether summary or ordinary – must act quickly. The most important deadline is the three-week period for the unfair dismissal claim under Section 4 KSchG. Anyone who misses this deadline loses dismissal protection, even if the dismissal would obviously be invalid. The claim must be filed with the labor court – a mere complaint to the works council or an email to the employer is not sufficient.
The review of the dismissal should cover several points: Is the dismissal formally valid? Was the works council consulted? Is there a reason for dismissal that justifies it? Especially with summary dismissals, the review of the deadline is crucial – the employer must dismiss within two weeks of becoming aware of the grounds for dismissal, otherwise the dismissal is invalid.
The strategy depends on the individual case. Anyone with good prospects of continued employment should pursue the unfair dismissal claim. Anyone expecting a separation can try to negotiate a severance payment after dismissal. Both paths lead through the labor court – and both require careful preparation. How to prepare for the negotiation is shown in our article Negotiating Severance Preparation: How to Succeed in Your Meeting.
An important note: even if the summary dismissal is invalid, the ordinary dismissal can be valid – as the VW case shows. Therefore, the claim should always challenge both dismissals if both exist. Otherwise, you risk the court deciding only on the summary dismissal while the ordinary dismissal remains unchallenged. In any case, you should examine the aspects of whistleblower protection dismissal carefully. We have summarized the basics of the unfair dismissal claim in our overview article Unfair Dismissal Claim: Everything You Need to Know.
Financing an Unfair Dismissal Claim: The Role of a Litigation Funder
An unfair dismissal claim can become expensive – particularly in the first instance, when multiple hearing days are needed and expert opinions are obtained. For employees with limited budgets, this is a real obstacle. This is where a litigation funder comes in. A litigation funder covers the costs of the proceedings – i.e., court fees and lawyer costs – and receives an agreed share of the severance payment won or the back pay awarded in the event of success.
RechtStark examines whether financing your proceedings is an option and then assumes the cost coverage. Important to understand: RechtStark is not a lawyer and not a law firm. Legal representation is always handled by an independent specialist employment lawyer. The litigation funder only assumes the financial side – they bear the cost risk so that you are not caught between legal fees and dismissal.
The VW case shows how long such proceedings can take: seven months passed from the first hearing in February to the decision in September – and a further judgment date is still pending. Anyone who must bridge this period financially needs planning certainty. A litigation funder can provide exactly this certainty by assuming the costs and participating only in the result in the event of success.
For the affected VW executives, the outcome of the proceedings is still open. The labor court has ruled on the back pay, but further points – including the employer’s counterclaim – are still outstanding. As we previously reported, VW has also announced the termination of collective bargaining agreements, which further unsettles many employees. Anyone in a similar situation should have their legal options reviewed early – and not be deterred by the complexity of the proceedings. With the right strategy and the right financing, even a protracted legal dispute can be endured.
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.