Hearing in the Legal Affairs Committee on the planned AGG amendment
The amendment to the Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG, General Equal Treatment Act) proposed by the Federal Government was assessed differently at a public hearing of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag. The meeting took place on Monday, 5 October 2026, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. in the Paul-Löbe-Haus and was broadcast on parliamentary television. The subject of the 49th committee meeting was, in particular, the government draft on Bundestagsdrucksache 21/6178 (Bundestag printed paper 21/6178) as well as the information document on Bundestagsdrucksache 21/6669 containing the statement of the Bundesrat (Federal Council) and the Federal Government’s counterstatement.
The draft had been adopted by the Federal Cabinet on 6 May 2026 on the proposal of Federal Minister of Justice Stefanie Hubig and Federal Minister for Women Karin Prien. The first reading in the Bundestag took place on 11 June 2026; the bills were subsequently referred to the committees, with the Legal Affairs Committee taking the lead. Motions by the parliamentary groups Die Linke and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen were also considered, including the motion “Strengthening the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency – Expanding Protection Against Discrimination” and the motion “Equal Rights for All”.
Key substantive aspects of the government draft
Extension of time limits and new conciliation body
Among other things, the government draft provides for extending the time limit for asserting claims under the AGG from the current two months to four months. In addition, a conciliation body is to be established at the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency. This is to be regulated in a new § 27a AGG (General Equal Treatment Act), including an authorisation to issue ordinances. According to the draft, the body is to examine discrimination matters and submit conciliation proposals.
The draft also provides for expanded opportunities for the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency to participate in court proceedings. For the agency’s assistance function, the bill assumes around 50 assistance cases and around four court statements per year. Only a minor compliance burden is assumed for citizens and the business sector.
Implementation of European requirements
The amendment serves to implement Directives (EU) 2024/1499 and (EU) 2024/1500. These entered into force on 18 June 2024 and had to be transposed into national law by 19 June 2026. The implementation deadline had therefore already expired at the time of the parliamentary deliberations.
The background also includes infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission against the Federal Republic of Germany on 11 December 2015 due to what the Commission considered insufficient implementation of the Equal Treatment Directive regarding access to goods and services. In this context, among other things, the restriction of § 19 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 AGG (Section 19(1) no. 1 of the General Equal Treatment Act) to mass transactions and the related statutory presumption under § 19 Abs. 5 Satz 3 AGG (Section 19(5) sentence 3 of the General Equal Treatment Act) in the context of letting are to be abolished or adjusted.
The draft also provides for amendments to the so-called church clause in § 9 Abs. 1 AGG (Section 9(1) of the General Equal Treatment Act). This adjustment is intended to follow the case law of the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), the Europäischer Gerichtshof (ECJ, Court of Justice of the European Union) and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) on the inapplicability of the previous first alternative. The discrimination characteristic “Alter” is to be replaced by “Lebensalter” for clarification.
Differing assessments at the hearing
Criticism of scope and depth of reform
Sigrid Arnade of NETZWERK ARTIKEL 3, the association for human rights and equality of persons with disabilities, assessed the draft in highly critical terms. She described it as “hard to surpass in timidity” and spoke of a “timid bill”. In her view, provisions on reasonable accommodation and accessibility are particularly lacking.
Arnade also considered the envisaged time limit for asserting claims still too short. In addition, she called for a right of representative action for associations as well as rules intended to prevent persons with disabilities from being arbitrarily excluded from travel, from using amusement parks or swimming pools, or from insurance. According to her account, this is currently often justified by the “pretext of supposed danger prevention”.
Eva Maria Andrades, Managing Director of the Antidiskriminierungsverband Deutschland, also considered the draft insufficient. It fell well short of what a reform after twenty years needed to achieve. In her assessment, although individual points were being corrected, the structural weaknesses of the law would largely remain. Anyone who today fails because of short time limits, the cost risk of litigation or gaps in protection would often still not obtain effective protection after this reform, according to her assessment.
Positive aspects and further need for amendment
Professor Susanne Baer, President of the Deutscher Juristinnenbund, emphasised that, in her view, the AGG urgently needed to be updated. She positively assessed the planned expansion of protection against discrimination in connection with pregnancy and maternity as well as sexual harassment. Clear rules were helpful in these areas.
Baer considered the planned extension of the time limit to be correct in principle. However, she advocated extending the time limit to at least six months. She also saw a need for improvement in the protection of executives. In addition, she supported rights of action for anti-discrimination associations and considered an effective larger-scale procedure preferable to ongoing conflicts.
Point of dispute: risks of abuse and so-called AGG-hopping cases
Objections from the perspective of lawyers and employers
Attorney Professor Michael Fuhlrott saw a need for statutory regulation with regard to so-called “AGG-hopping”. According to his account, the intention of the AGG is turned into its opposite if claims for compensation are asserted by formally invoking the law while deliberately exploiting statutory provisions merely to generate income. He described “AGG-hopping” as targeted applications for positions where discrimination is expected or deliberately provoked in order subsequently to assert compensation claims under the AGG.
Roland Wolf of the Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände also considered the protection against such practices insufficient. In his assessment, protective mechanisms under anti-discrimination law are being used in a targeted manner to obtain compensation payments. The legislature was therefore called upon to effectively counter existing opportunities for abuse instead of further entrenching them through procedural expansions.
Wolf also opposed the planned doubling of the time limit for asserting claims from two to four months. He described the rule as counterproductive, considered the peace under the law to be impaired and did not regard the extension as required by the relevant directives. In its written statement as Ausschussdrucksache 21(6)119b (committee printed paper 21(6)119b) of 1 October 2026, the BDA also criticised, among other things, the structure of the planned conciliation procedure under § 27a Abs. 4 AGG-E (Section 27a(4) of the draft General Equal Treatment Act).
Assessment of the extension of the time limit
Professor Gregor Thüsing, Managing Director of the Institute for Labour Law and Social Security Law at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, also viewed the planned extension of the time limit in light of European requirements. In his assessment, the legislature is going well beyond what is required under European law with regard to the time limit.
Thüsing pointed out that two months can already be quite a long time in employment law, for example where in the event of dismissal only a three-week period applies. An extension to four months was therefore significant and, in this respect, also had to be acknowledged by those who had expected more far-reaching changes. He assessed the planned conciliation body as not required under the directive, but nevertheless permissible.
Further reform points from the Bundesrat, associations and the public
Deliberation in the Bundesrat and the Federal Government’s counterstatement
The Bundesrat dealt with the draft at the end of May 2026; the committee deliberations took place on 27 and 28 May 2026. Bundesrat committees recommended, among other things, examining a right to act as a party by virtue of procedural standing for the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency and for anti-discrimination associations under § 23 AGG (Section 23 of the General Equal Treatment Act). It was also suggested that the characteristic of “family care responsibilities” be included in § 1 AGG (Section 1 of the General Equal Treatment Act).
The Federal Government examined these proposals but saw no need to adjust its bill. In its counterstatement, it also pointed out that the AGG is formulated in a technology-neutral manner. This also applied with regard to discrimination by AI systems.
Criticism by the Federal Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and civil society petition
Federal Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Ferda Ataman criticised the draft as lacking ambition. She warned that Germany was once again facing the threat of infringement proceedings at EU level. She also criticised the fact that the Länder and associations had been given only four working days to submit comments.
Ataman further called for a right of representative action for associations and more extensive powers for the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency than provided for in the government draft. Immediately before the hearing, the alliance “AGG Reform – Jetzt!” handed over more than 55,000 signatures for a petition to the Bundestag on 5 October 2026. The petition “An end to symbolic politics – For genuine protection against discrimination” had been launched on 18 August 2026 to mark the 20th anniversary of the AGG.
Discrimination by AI systems as a further point of discussion
Professor Alexander Tischbirek of the Universität Regensburg addressed the risk of discriminatory AI systems at the hearing. In his assessment, an approach of minimal implementation of European requirements proves particularly problematic in this area. The scenario of discriminatory AI illustrates how individual deficits in the draft could reinforce one another in a specific case.
Even under the government draft, the AGG is not to contain any special provisions for protection against “algorithmic” discrimination. Tischbirek pointed out that the prohibitions of discrimination under the AGG generally also apply in the digital sphere. At the same time, he saw the risk that the difficult enforcement regime of the AGG could lead to a considerable gap between normative protection and the legal reality actually experienced in practice.
Next steps in the legislative procedure
Following the hearing, the legislative procedure has not yet been completed. The lead Legal Affairs Committee must first submit a recommendation for a resolution. This will be followed by the second and third readings in the Bundestag, consideration by the Bundesrat and any promulgation.
Until a statutory amendment is enacted, the previous legal situation continues to apply. This concerns in particular the two-month time limit currently applicable for asserting claims under the AGG. For companies, executives, employees and private claimants, the development of the reform therefore remains of considerable importance.
Employment law relevance for companies and affected persons
The debate surrounding the AGG amendment shows that questions of protection against discrimination are of considerable practical importance not only in terms of social policy, but also in employment law. This concerns in particular application procedures, employment conditions, internal complaint structures, compensation claims and the handling of time limits. At the same time, the hearing makes clear that the scope, enforcement and procedural design of the AGG remain controversial.
MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises companies, investors and high-net-worth private individuals on employment law issues relating to equal treatment law. Anyone with legal questions in connection with the AGG, employment law proceedings or operational requirements can find further information at Legal advice in employment law.
