An asylum officer who had displayed a so-called „Pride Month“ flag in his office could not be dismissed without first receiving a written warning. This was established by the Giessen Labour Court (ArbG) in a recently published ruling (judgement of 22 April 2026 – 6 Ca 220/25).

The claimant, a fully qualified lawyer employed by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, had made the flag himself in June 2025 – designed like a rainbow flag but in the colours of the German national flag – and hung it up in his office. When a line manager first asked him to remove it, he complied immediately and without objection. Around six and a half weeks later, however, his employer terminated his employment in accordance with the rules – without any prior warning.

The court stated that, whilst the claimant, in his capacity as an asylum decision-maker, had breached the state’s duty of neutrality: The flag is used by right-wing to far-right circles as a symbol against the LGBTIQ community, and an asylum seeker might gain the impression that their case would be rejected by the authorities. However, dismissal without prior warning is only permissible if even a first-time breach of duty is manifestly unreasonable or if no change in behaviour can be expected. Neither of these conditions applies in this case: the claimant showed understanding, removed the flag immediately and voluntarily enrolled in anti-discrimination training. Furthermore, several line managers had been aware of the flag for days without demanding its removal – behaviour which contradicts the subsequent characterisation of the breach of duty as being of such a serious nature. The court also made it clear that the mere act of displaying the flag did not in itself justify the assumption that the claimant rejected the free democratic basic order – further evidence would be required for that.

„The ruling makes it clear that public-sector employers should take decisive action at the very first signs of extremist views among staff. In doing so, they must always assess whether there has been a breach of the obligations arising from the employment relationship,“ explains Rechtsanwalt’s Dr Johannes Held.  „In the public sector, the so-called duty of political loyalty is particularly significant in this context. The extent to which this applies is determined in each individual case primarily by the employee’s role. If, on that basis, there are indications of a breach of contractual obligations, steps under employment law – in particular a written warning – should be consistently considered, so that action can be taken on a sound legal footing in the event of further incidents.“ It is not known whether the defendant state has lodged an appeal against the decision.