Federal Labour Court, 23.01.2014, Ref.: 8 AZR 118/13
In principle, the court must examine the admissibility and merits of an action. Part of the examination of the merits is, among other things, the question of whether the plaintiff has active legitimacy and the defendant has passive legitimacy.
The plaintiff has active legitimacy if he is actually entitled to the right asserted in the action. The defendant is passively legitimised if he is actually obliged by the claim made against him.
In other words, the plaintiff is not actively legitimised if the claim does not belong to him but to a third party. In turn, the defendant is not passively legitimised if the claim is not directed against the defendant but against a third party.
This sounds very easy to understand at first and should be unproblematic in most cases. Nevertheless, problems can occur from time to time.
In the Federal Labour Court case referred to above, the court had to decide whether a claim for compensation based on Section 15 (2) AGG actually existed against the defendant.
Facts of the Case:
Plaintiff had applied as a recruitment agency
In September 2011, the plaintiff applied for a job advertised on the internet as a recruitment agency. According to the advert, the position was to be at "our Braunschweig branch".
The application was to be sent to UPN GmbH in Ahrensburg. At the end of the job advertisement, reference was also made to UP GmbH in Ahrensburg for any "contact information for applicants".
Plaintiff applied for a job with another limited liability company also named
The plaintiff applied using the e-mail address provided and addressed the letter of application to UP GmbH. He then received a rejection by email, the sender of which was UPN GmbH.
Since the plaintiff felt disadvantaged by the cancellation, he demanded compensation from UPN GmbH for violation of the prohibition of discrimination under the General Equal Treatment Act.
After the cancellation, the plaintiff sued for compensation due to discrimination
UPN GmbH then refused to pay compensation, but gave more detailed reasons for rejecting the application.
Finally, the plaintiff sued UPN GmbH for payment of appropriate compensation. In the lawsuit, UPN GmbH argued that it was not UPN GmbH but UP GmbH that had advertised the position for its Braunschweig site.
The labour court instances initially called upon followed the view of the defendant and dismissed the action.
Decision of the Federal Labor Court
BAG only saw a claim for compensation against the actually notified employer
The BAG also followed the view of the defendant. According to the BAG, UPN GmbH was merely a recruitment agency in this case. UP GmbH would have been the plaintiff's employer when he was hired.
The claim for compensation pursuant to Section 15 (2) AGG can only be directed against the "employer".
Source: Federal Labor Court
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.