Introduction
The decision of the Federal Labor Court (BAG) from January 25, 2024 (Case No. 6 AZR 2/25) is part of a multitude of labor law judgments that address the scope and legal quality of job references. The decision links to the ongoing discussion about how far the employer must go when formulating their evaluation – in terms of potential future participation rights of the employee – and which boundaries must be observed due to general personal rights or other labor law considerations.
The following presents the essential aspects of the decision, embedded in its labor law and practically relevant contexts. At the same time, an outlook on practical implications for companies and affected employees is given.
Background to Case 6 AZR 2/25
Facts of the Case
The judgment was based on a dispute between a female employee and her former employer. The central issue revolved around the formulation of a qualified job reference that should accurately and benevolently reflect not only work performance but also behavior during employment. The lawsuit was based on a disagreement over formulations in the closing statement, which typically includes a thank you for the work performed and regretful comments about the departure.
The specific point of contention was to what extent the employer is obliged to include certain positive evaluations or appreciations if the employee has demanded them emphatically.
Procedural Course and Instances
The lower court had taken the view in its decision that the employee’s entitlement to a qualified job reference is limited to an objective and balanced assessment of performance and behavior. Formulations beyond this, such as personal expressions of thanks or explicit expressions of regret, are not covered by this claim.
With the appeal, the plaintiff contested this limitation, thus bringing the case before the Federal Labor Court.
Key Statements of the Judgment and Legal Assessment
Scope of the Reference Entitlement
The BAG confirms the established case law that a job reference must fundamentally adhere to the duty of truthfulness and the requirement of benevolence. However, according to the BAG, the reference entitlement granted by law (§ 109 Gewerbeordnung) does not include an obligation on the employer to incorporate personal judgments or positive closing formulations beyond mere performance and behavior assessment, unless these correspond to the facts or company practices.
Importance of the Closing Statement
The so-called closing statement, which addresses both the professional and personal level, is not a legally mandatory component of the reference. With the current judgment, the Federal Labor Court confirms its cautious stance that the inclusion of thanks or regrets cannot be required. Employees therefore do not have a claim to personal appreciation in the closing statement.
Practical Relevance and Corporate Handling
For employers, the decision means there is no legal obligation to formulate blanket expressions of thanks or wishes for the future – unless there is a uniform practice in the company that specifies otherwise. In individual cases, further rights may arise from company practices.
For employees, the judgment means that their options for demanding specific reference formulations are limited. The case law thus leaves room for individual agreements, as long as they do not violate legal prohibitions and correspond to the facts.
Implications and Further Considerations
Implications for Companies and Employees
The judgment provides a reliable orientation for the drafting of future references and contributes to legal certainty between the parties of the employment relationship. Companies are obliged to observe the principles of truth and benevolence, without having to commit to obligations beyond objectifiable facts.
Employees gain the opportunity to insist on contentually accurate assessments – but still depend on the employer’s goodwill regarding individual appreciations.
Outlook
The established case law in the area of job reference law will continue to offer differentiated solutions and negotiation leeway between the parties, especially in the case of amicable terminations of employment relationships. It remains to be seen how and if company practices will change due to the decision.
Conclusion
With the judgment 6 AZR 2/25, the Federal Labor Court provides clear guidelines on the scope and legal limits of the reference entitlement and thus creates increased clarity for all parties involved in an employment relationship. For in-depth questions regarding the drafting of job references or related to terminations of employment relationships, it is recommended to analyze the individual situation considering legal particularities. The lawyers of MTR Legal are available if needed to provide support in developing appropriate solutions in this challenging legal field.
