Sick Note After Denied Vacation—Probative Value Lost, German Labor Court Rules

00:00

24:53

Quick Hits

• A precise temporal overlap between a denied vacation extension and a sick leave report, combined with a recurrence in the previous year, can undermine the probative value of a certificate of incapacity for work.
• Once the probative value has been undermined, the employee must specifically demonstrate and prove the inability to work, including symptoms, effects on the job, and medical instructions.

Certificates of incapacity for work are typically the primary evidence that an employee was unable to work due to illness and is therefore entitled to continued pay. Under certain circumstances, the employer may raise serious doubts as to the incapacity to work. If the employer succeeds in doing so, the employee must provide concrete proof of their illness and the resulting incapacity to work. If the employee fails to do so, there is no entitlement to continued pay.

The Case—Certificate of Incapacity for Work After Denied Vacation Request

The employee had approved vacation time in the summer of 2025 and, while still on vacation, requested an extension for the following week on multiple occasions. The employer refused. On the morning of the first workday following the approved vacation, the employee reported being unable to work for exactly the previously requested vacation period and submitted a certificate of incapacity for work from the family doctor. The employer refused to continue to pay wages. The previous year, immediately after the employee’s 2024 vacation, the employee had also obtained a certificate of incapacity for work from the same family doctor for one week.

The Decision—Probative Value Undermined, Claim Dismissed

The labor court dismissed the claim. The court first clarified that the employee generally bears the burden of alleging and proving the requirements for the entitlement to continued pay. This includes, in particular, that the employee was unable to work due to illness. While a properly issued certificate of incapacity for work is generally the most important piece of evidence, it neither establishes an irrefutable presumption nor does it result in a complete reversal of the burden of proof in favor of the employee.

The employer is therefore not required to accept a certificate of incapacity for work at face value if there are specific circumstances that give rise to serious doubts as to the certified incapacity for work. A mere denial, however, is not sufficient. Actual evidence is required that undermines the probative value of the certificate.

In the court’s view, such evidence was present in this case. Of particular significance was the fact that the employee had previously made several unsuccessful attempts to have his vacation extended to cover the subsequent period of illness. The subsequent notice of incapacity for work covered exactly the same period. In addition, the court considered the fact that a one-week period of incapacity for work had already occurred the previous year immediately after the vacation as further evidence. Taking all factors into account, the court considered the probative value of the certificate of incapacity for work to have been undermined.

If the probative value is undermined, the employee must specifically allege and prove the incapacity to work. To do so, the employee must then specifically state and, in the event of a dispute, prove what illness was present, what health limitations existed, what effects these had on the employee’s job duties, and what medical measures or rules of conduct were prescribed. In the case at hand, the employee claimed severe back pain, inability to move, and the use of painkillers. The family doctor had reportedly diagnosed severe muscle tension. While the court still considered this statement sufficient to proceed with the hearing of evidence, the plaintiff was unable to provide proof of his incapacity to work. The family doctor, who was heard as a witness, could no longer recall the specific treatment. He could not even say with certainty whether he had personally examined the plaintiff or had merely issued a certificate of incapacity for work following a phone call. The medical records revealed only a diagnosis, but no specific findings. Thus, in the court’s view, there were no reliable supporting facts to confirm the alleged incapacity for work.

Context of the Decision

The decision aligns with labor court case law, which continues to assign high probative value to certificates of incapacity for work but allows employers to mount an effective defense when the overall circumstances are suspicious.

The decision confirms that not only the content of the certificate may be relevant; courts may also consider an employee’s conduct before and after reporting sick. Courts may find the probative value undermined where an employee unsuccessfully seeks to extend vacation and then submits a certificate of incapacity for work covering exactly that period. This is reinforced if such a pattern repeats itself over several years.

Case Law

The labor court’s ruling is consistent with previous case law. The Baden-Württemberg Regional Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht (LAG) Baden‑Württemberg) also recently emphasized that the probative value of medical certificates can be undermined if they are tailored precisely to legally significant time periods; the decisive factor is always the overall assessment (Judgment of November 28, 2025, Ref. No. 7 Sa 33/25).

Key Takeaways

The ruling makes it clear that the probative value of a certificate of incapacity for work can be undermined. However, the employer’s subjective belief that the employee is not at all incapacitated for work is not sufficient for this. Rather, in the event of a dispute, the employer may want to present specific circumstances explaining why the incapacity for work is questionable despite the medical certificate. Such circumstances may include a certificate of incapacity for work covering the period of a requested but denied vacation, or a certificate issued immediately after the employee’s termination of employment and lasting through the notice period.

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

Dr. Ulrike Conradi is the managing partner of Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin and Munich offices.

Lela Salman, a law clerk in Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin office, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts