Gender-Sensitive Language Was Not the Decisive Factor in Employee’s Invalid Termination, Hamburg Regional Labor Court Rules

The Regional Labor Court of Hamburg (Landesarbeitsgericht (LAG)) (Ref. Nos. 1 SLa 18/25 and 1 SLa 19/25) has declared invalid two written warnings and an extraordinary termination issued against a radiation protection officer. The employee had refused to comply with her manager’s direction to revise a radiation protection instruction she had drafted, incorporating gender-sensitivelanguage throughout and including a specific clarification at one point in the document. Contrary to what one might initially assume, the invalidity did not turn on the gender-sensitivelanguage requirement itself, but rather on a more fundamental question: whether the employee was under any obligation to make such amendments in the first place—entirely independent of the gender- inclusivity.issue.

Quick Hits

• The Regional Labor Court of Hamburg’s ruling in a case involving the termination of a radiation protection officer underscores the importance of verifying an employee’s scope of duties before assigning the employee a task.
• Only the failure to comply with directions that fall within an employee’s area of responsibility can give rise to consequences under employment law, such as written warnings and, where applicable, termination.

The Facts—Dispute Over Gender-Sensitive Radiation Protection Instruction

The employee is a qualified chemist employed by the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH)), where she had been appointed as a radiation protection officer. The BSH issued two written warnings against the employee and subsequently effected an extraordinary termination with a notice period. The reason: She had failed to amend a radiation protection instruction despite her manager’s direction to do so. Specifically, she was required to revise the document to incorporate gender-sensitive language and to include a particular clarification.

The Decision—No Valid Direction

At first instance, the Labor Court of Hamburg (Arbeitsgericht (ArbG)) had already ruled that the written warnings must be removed from the employee’s personnel file (Ref. No. 4 Ca 62/25) and that the termination was invalid (Ref. No. 4 Ca 53/25). The BSH appealed both judgments to the LAG—without success.

On February 5, 2026, the LAG upheld the first instance judgments. Notably, the court did not address whether the employee could have been validly directed to use gender-sensitivelanguage in the radiation protection instruction. The termination failed at an earlier stage of the legal analysis: The employee was under no obligation to make amendments to the radiation protection instruction at all.

In the present case, no such obligation arose either from the employment contract in conjunction with the job description underlying her position, or from a valid delegation of duties pursuant to section 70(2) of the Radiation Protection Act (Strahlenschutzgesetz) in conjunction with section 43 of the Radiation Protection Ordinance (Strahlenschutzverordnung). In short: Amending the radiation protection instruction simply did not fall within the employee’s scope of duties. Consequently, her refusal to make the amendments could not trigger any consequences.

Key Takeaways

This judgment underscores the importance of determining whether tasks fall within the scope of duties of the relevant employee. Only where this is the case can failure to comply with corresponding directions give rise to consequences under employment law.

Julia Kulmegies is an associate in the Berlin office of Ogletree Deakins.

Teodora Ghinoiu contributed to this article as a research assistant in the Berlin office of Ogletree Deakins.

Image: Adobe Stock.