Immediate Termination in Germany for Online Sick Leave Without Medical Examination

Quick Hits

• Digitalization in business processes in Germany has led to challenges such as the online acquisition and submission of sick leave certificates without physician contact.
• The Higher Labor Court of Hamm ruled that a sick leave certificate obtained without a personal medical examination is insufficient and can justify an employee’s immediate.
• Businesses may want to educate supervisors and HR departments on the varying evidentiary value of sick leave certificates, especially those obtained online without physician consultation.

The Facts of the Case

An employee reported sick to his employer for the period from August 19 to August 23, 2024. He purchased a paid sick leave certificate online and submitted it to the employer as proof of his inability to work. The website he used offered both a “sick leave certificate without consultation” and a “sick leave certificate with consultation.” The employee chose the “sick leave certificate without consultation,” meaning no contact with a physician took place—neither in person, by phone, nor digitally via video—in connection with issuing the certificate.

The employee merely filled out a questionnaire with information about symptoms, fever, the type of work performed, the physical intensity of the job, and questions about delayed recovery. The certificate he received and submitted visually matched the form that was used as the template for paper-based sick leave certificates before the introduction of electronic sick leave certificates (Template 1b, version 1.2018), as issued by the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung) for submission to the employer. The website contained a notice stating that the sick leave certificate without consultation “would have less evidentiary value in court than a sick leave certificate with a physician consultation.” After the employer learned of this situation, she terminated the employee without notice. The employee then filed an unfair dismissal claim with the Labor Court of Dortmund (Arbeitsgericht Dortmund (ArbG Dortmund)).

The Higher Labor Court’s Decision

The Labor Court of Dortmund (ruling dated January 8, 2025 – Ref. No. 9 Ca 3671/24) granted the unfair dismissal claim and held that the termination was invalid due to the lack of a prior warning to the employee.

The Higher Labor Court of Hamm (ruling dated September 5, 2025 – Ref. No. 14 SLa 145/25) overturned the first-instance ruling of the Labor Court of Dortmund and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

The Higher Labor Court of Hamm affirmed the requirements for an extraordinary termination for cause. In reviewing the extraordinary termination, the court first found that there was “cause in and of itself” in two respects: First, the employee had created the impression that he had consulted a physician to determine his inability to work by submitting the sick leave certificate. This deception constituted a violation of the duty of consideration under the employment contract (Section 241 (2) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB)), which qualifies as “good cause in principle” within the meaning of Section 626 (1) BGB. Second, the employee had fraudulently obtained a sick leave certificate. This also constitutes “good cause in principle” under Section 626 (1) BGB, particularly when the employee—as in this case—receives continued payment of wages for the period of the feigned inability to work.

Although a sick leave certificate generally carries high evidentiary value because it is the legally prescribed and most important proof of an employee’s inability to work due to illness, the evidentiary value of the sick leave certificate at issue was undermined in two respects: On the one hand, the requirements of the Incapacity for Work Directive (Arbeitsunfähigkeits-Richtlinie) were not met, since the sick leave certificate was issued without a prior medical examination—meaning without direct or indirect personal contact with a physician. On the other hand, the sick leave certificate was purchased online for a fee after filling out a questionnaire, with the provider itself clearly indicating its reduced evidentiary value. It would then have been up to the plaintiff employee to substantiate his inability to work. He failed to do so.

Furthermore, the Higher Labor Court of Hamm held that a prior warning was not required in this case, given the severity of the breach of trust caused by the misconduct. The particular severity stems from the fact that the process of determining an employee’s inability to work is an area into which the employer generally has no insight. Accordingly, the court also affirmed that continuing the employment relationship was unreasonable under the circumstances of the individual case.

Key Takeaways

The Higher Labor Court of Hamm sets limits on online sick leave certificates. The ruling emphasizes the importance of a personal medical examination as the absolute minimum requirement for a sick leave certificate. While a sick leave certificate may generally also be issued based on an indirect personal examination via video consultation or after a telephone anamnesis, merely filling out a questionnaire about symptoms does not meet these requirements.

If a sick leave certificate is issued without a personal examination, it is not only unsuitable for proving the employee’s inability to work due to illness—it can even justify an immediate termination if submitted to the employer.

For practical purposes in business operations, employers may want to provide training for supervisors and the human resources department regarding sick leave certifications. Although the evidentiary value of medical sick leave certificates remains generally high, not every sick leave certificate automatically carries evidentiary value.

Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin and Munich offices will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Cross-Border, Germany, Leaves of Absence, and Technology blogs as additional information becomes available.

Martin Greßlin is a partner in the Munich office of Ogletree Deakins.

Niklas Thiel, a law clerk in the Munich office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts