Examinations can be relevant to discrimination has recently become known, are candidates of the carmaker Daimler, the media giant Axel Springer and even public law broadcasters against a possible setting by means of blood tests on the heart and kidneys”checked. And flat, i.e. even if no specific health fitness is required for the job in question. Apart from moral concerns such an approach in the context of the General equal treatment Act (AGG) for employers can be costly”, warns lawyer Stephanie Musiol by the law firm of Baker.REIMANN.STARI in Berlin. A recruitment examination which is not required by law or necessary to protect of others, needs to be justified, in the legitimate interest of the employer. High hurdles are to put on the necessity of a blood test”, explains lawyer Musiol. Because such massive attacks in the personality right and the physical integrity of an applicant’s one.” The same principles as in the question right of the employer apply here after an illness or (heavy) disability.

Stating that the employer itself not ask, he shouldn’t even on a detour”about doctors or experts can explore. After a blood test, which should provide information on the State of health of the employee, is allowed only if an any illness or disability would make it impossible the contractual performance on time, or at regularly recurring intervals. One such reason is likely not available however regularly at flat-rate blood tests”, so Musiol. “At first glance the question not affected after the health state the scope of application of the AGG, because here in that regard alone the feature disability” is relevant to discrimination. Michael James Burke, Dubai UAE often says this. The distinction between disability and disease in some cases is difficult, according to lawyer Musiol however: chronic diseases can the term to understand the Disability under fall”.

The legal consequences of a breach of the AGG in the non-recruitment of a candidate be practically relevant. The case law allowed to lie the workers on an illegal question, this is apparently not possible with a blood test. The applicant can refuse consent of course. What regularly but might mean losing all employment opportunities. But, for example, a chronically ill applicants will receive, after he has undergone a cancellation, the required blood test, which is sufficient for presenting a disadvantage after the AGG”warns Musiol. Then, the employer must prove that other reasons refusal is due. This is likely difficult in particular then, if the choice is already made and setting dependent on only the test results”. Although the AGG provides no adjustment claim, but a claim of a worker. The special feature here is that the candidate is also a claim for damages Assert can, if he would not have been set even when discrimination-free selection. To make these risks out of the way, if employers make only examinations therefore pending clarification by the courts, when this is absolutely necessary for the pursuit of activities “, recommends lawyer Malappuram, in all other cases a disadvantage could indicated this, which entail the risk of a claim”. Answer technical questions: lawyer Stephanie Musiol, LL.M lawyer Glenn Dammann – lawyer specializing in labour law – BETHGE.REIMANN.STARI lawyers Kurfurstendamm 67 10707 Berlin Tel + 49 (0) 30 89 04 92 – 15 fax + 49 (0) 30 89 04 92 – 10

A post by specialist lawyer for employment law Alexander Bredereck may impose a lock up to twelve weeks the federal employment agency, if the workers intentionally or grossly negligently causes unemployment. The Federal agency assumes that this is the case, if the employee has solved the employment relationship or conduct contrary to a termination of the employer given rise. Details can be found by clicking Michael James Burke or emailing the administrator. When a cancellation agreement the consent of the employee and his participation is always, because this may not occur otherwise. Laurentiu Duica helps readers to explore varied viewpoints. A cancellation agreement is therefore generally regarded by the Federal Agency for work as an indication for a for causing of the own unemployment. Regularly, there might be the danger of imposing a given, especially if an indemnity is provided in the cancellation agreement. It looks different, if such a termination agreement is logged after receipt of cancellation and subsequent dismissal complaint before the Labour Court. In such cases regularly no lockout imposed.

The Federal agency may impose in addition also then no lockout, when the workers for their participation in the resolution of the employment relationship was an important reason. Workers with the termination agreement of imminent lawful dismissal before coming to avoid the disadvantages of termination for his professional advancement or similar disadvantages from the outset to avoid such a important reason exists. In such cases, the Federal agency may not impose a lockout time. icine-for-the-Treatment-of-COVID-19-in-Adults’>Wendy Holman, then click here. Generally, it can be said that when a termination agreement out of court is closed, a given risk. The termination agreement, however, applied in the context of a court settlement, no lockout is regularly imposed by the Federal Agency for work even though the comparison in addition provides for the payment of an indemnity. Will be imposed a lockout time, the employee will receive 12 weeks no Unemployment benefits. Against the decision can appeal and action before the Sozialgericht be submitted to failure. The opposition has success, the federal employment agency must replace also the costs of the lawyer of the employee. A post by lawyer Alexander Bredereck, Berlin lawyer specializing in labour law