Legal Aid for Lawsuits Seeking the Removal of a Warning Letter After Termination of Employment: Legal Framework and Recent Ruling
The removal of a warning letter from personnel files is a frequent point of contention between employees and employers in employment law. This claim becomes particularly relevant when the employment relationship has already ended. In a recent decision by the Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labor Court (Case No.: 26 Ta 223/24, decision of June 10, 2024), the granting of legal aid for such a lawsuit was examined in detail. This article analyzes the legal aspects and highlights the implications of the ruling for future legal disputes.
Background of the Proceedings
At the center of the proceedings was an employee who, after the end of her employment, requested the removal of a warning letter issued during her employment from her personnel records. The employer refused this request. Before the competent labor court, the plaintiff initially applied for legal aid, which was denied on the grounds of insufficient prospects of success. The appeal to the Regional Labor Court then led to a review of this decision.
Entitlement to Removal of a Warning Letter According to § 242 BGB and § 17 (2) GDPR
Ongoing Legal Interest
A central issue was whether there is still a legitimate legal interest in the removal of the warning letter even after termination of the employment relationship. According to established case law, such an interest may continue to exist, for example, to avoid negative assessments in future job applications or if the job reference relies on the personnel file. The continued storage of personal data in the form of warning letters also raises data protection considerations, especially under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), so that deletion can also be demanded from this perspective.
Relevant Legal Bases
The Regional Labor Court examined the prospects of success for the lawsuit based on §§ 241 ff. BGB, and referred to § 242 BGB for the right to removal. Additionally, the GDPR regulations regarding the erasure or correction of personal data must be observed. The legal assessment always depends on the specific circumstances of the case.
Standard of Review for Legal Aid
Prospects of Success of the Lawsuit
A precondition for the granting of legal aid under § 114 ZPO is that the intended legal action does not appear frivolous and there are sufficient prospects of success. The court’s summary examination does not require a final clarification of all legal questions or facts.
Requirement for Substantiation and Burden of Pleading
The Regional Labor Court clarified that an applicant seeking the removal of a warning letter sufficiently demonstrates prospects of success if they provide substantiated reasons as to why the warning letter is inaccurate or why the employer no longer has a legitimate interest in its continued retention. The court referred here to the statements of the Federal Labor Court, which require the employer, at the latest after a judicial indication, to specify the grounds on which continued retention of the warning letter might be necessary.
Correct Procedural Handling
It was also decisive that proceedings before the labor court are not to be conducted under the same strict standards as in the main proceedings. The Regional Labor Court held that the first instance court had overstated the requirements for the prospect of success by imposing too high a burden of substantiation on the employee.
Practical Implications for Employment Law Practice
The decision highlights that employees, even after the end of an employment relationship, can generally assert a continuing legitimate interest in the removal of a warning letter from the personnel file. The ruling also clarifies that the hurdles for the granting of legal aid in such cases must not be set too high. This is especially true when data protection considerations and the interest in an unimpaired professional future are at stake.
Employers are well advised to carefully safeguard the interests of former employees when storing and possibly forwarding warning letters in the context of application or reference procedures. Routine rejection of requests for deletion or removal can be viewed negatively in judicial review. Employees are advised to present precise reasons why continued storage of the warning letter is no longer necessary or may even be harmful.
Source Note and Ongoing Proceedings
The decision described is based on ongoing or completed legal proceedings, relying on the publicly available decision of the Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labor Court (Case No.: 26 Ta 223/24 of 10.06.2024). Further procedural steps—as is usual in similar proceedings—depend on the particular case. The general principles can be applied analogously to similar situations; however, they do not replace an individual legal assessment.
Should you have any questions or require advice on the topics presented, the attorneys at MTR Legal are available throughout Germany for confidential contact.
