The Bavarian Higher Administrative Court recently addressed the
issue whether a pregnant employee can be dismissed without notice
after having posted a critical statement about a client of the
employer. The plaintiff was employed by a security agency in the
reception area of a phone company. She had a private phone contract
with that company and uttered negatively about this provider via
The Court held that the statement did not
constitute a "special case" which is required by law to
justify a dismissal of pregnant employees. It needs to be taken
into account that the comment referred to the employee's
private contract relationship to the phone company and was still
covered by the right of freedom of expression, since it did not
constitute abusive criticism. Furthermore it needs to be considered
that the comment was posted in a private conversation with
the employee's internet-friends.
The lesson? If a pregnant employee utters negatively about an
important client of the employer via a private social media
account, such statement could only justify a dismissal if it
constitutes abusive criticism.
About Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC)
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In October 2012, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a Service Provision Change ("SPC") TUPE transfer can only occur where the client who receives the service, before and after the change, remains the same (Hunter v McCarrick  EWCA Civ 1399).
A discussion on the current law and expected changes to the legislation relating to whistleblowing.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”