Ordinary termination due to criticism of shift management in vulgar language invalid
Update Employment Law December 2025
LAG Düsseldorf 18.11.2025 –3 SLa 699/24
The Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court (LAG) has ruled that ordinary termination due to vulgar criticism expressed in Turkish, in the form of a Turkish idiom, was disproportionate in this specific case.
Background
The plaintiff has been employed by the defendant in shift work since 2020. In April 2024, the defendant had already issued him with a warning for leaving his workplace without authorization and for insulting his then supervisor.
Just a few months later, in August 2024, the plaintiff also got into an argument with his new supervisor. The employer claims that the plaintiff ignored a specific work instruction from his supervisor. He replied that she had no authority over him and was still a child. After the supervisor instructed him to leave the factory floor, the plaintiff replied in Turkish: "You fucked the mother of the shift."
The plaintiff argued that he had only said "You made the shift mother cry" in Turkish. He did not say the vulgar version. Rather, he had been misunderstood, partly due to the noise in the factory hall.
Decision
Unlike the labor court, the Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court ruled in favor of the employee.
After hearing the evidence, the appellate court was of the opinion that the employee had said the vulgar version, "You fucked the mother of the shift." However, according to witness testimony, this was not meant as a personal insult or to be understood as such. Rather, it was criticism of the shift management as such, expressed in vulgar language. The remark was not intended to disparage the supervisor as a person.
The angry remark was made in a conflict situation and thus under special circumstances. After weighing up the mutual interests, the appeals court concluded that the proper termination was disproportionate.
Summary
In the opinion of the Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court, the plaintiff's emotional outburst did not justify termination. The decisive factor here was probably that the remark was not directed at the supervisor as a person. It was not an insult, but "only" an emotional outburst of anger. Nevertheless, this proceeding could still have been a warning shot for the plaintiff to rein in his emotions somewhat in the future.
