{"id":5021,"date":"2026-07-09T23:06:47","date_gmt":"2026-07-09T21:06:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/knowledge-base\/dismissal-due-to-illness-germany\/"},"modified":"2026-07-10T11:02:23","modified_gmt":"2026-07-10T09:02:23","slug":"dismissal-due-to-illness-germany","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/dismissal-due-to-illness-germany\/","title":{"rendered":"Dismissal due to illness in Germany \u2014 it&#8217;s not about the number of sick days alone"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n\r\n<div id=\"progress\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/div>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/dismissal-due-to-illness-germany\/\"},\"headline\":\"Dismissal due to illness in Germany \u2014 it's not about the number of sick days alone\",\"description\":\"Frequent sick leave alone does not justify dismissal in Germany. One-off illnesses are deducted and up to six weeks a year is the employer's own risk.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-09\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-09\",\"author\":{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"name\":\"Dr. Artur Barczewski\",\"jobTitle\":\"Rechtsanwalt\"},\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski & Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\"}},\"image\":\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\"},{\"@type\":\"FAQPage\",\"mainEntity\":[{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Can my employer dismiss me while I am on sick leave?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Yes, a notice of dismissal served during sick leave is permissible. The protection lies not in a ban on dismissals during illness, but in the strict requirements the employer must prove in court.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"How many sick days per year justify a dismissal?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"There is no fixed limit, but the guideline is six weeks per year within the three-year reference period. Below that line a dismissal due to illness is as a rule unjustified.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"What is a BEM and do I have to take part?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"It is an offer of a confidential conversation about preventing further absences, mandatory for the employer once you have been ill for more than six weeks in a year. For the employee, participation is voluntary.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"What can I realistically gain by filing a claim?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"The court may declare that the employment relationship continues, with back pay for the litigation period and continued employment. Many proceedings also end in a settlement with a severance payment.\"}}]}]}<\/script>\r\n\r\n<!-- EN version of zwolnienie-z-pracy-z-powodu-choroby (page 5020).\r\n     Based on ArbG Koblenz, judgment of 24.9.2025 - 4 Ca 473\/25. Facts, figures and quotes\r\n     verified against the reasons of the judgment on 09.07.2026. Statutes cited in the\r\n     judgment: \u00a7 1 II, \u00a7 4, \u00a7 23 KSchG, \u00a7 3 EFZG, \u00a7 167 II SGB IX. -->\r\n<header>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <a href=\"\/en\/\" class=\"brand\" aria-label=\"BWLAW\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"BWLAW \u2013 law firm in Germany\" width=\"42\" height=\"28\"><\/a>\r\n    <nav aria-label=\"Main navigation\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/\">Cars<\/a>\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\" class=\"active\">Knowledge base<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"\/en\/#zespol\">Team<\/a>\r\n    <\/nav>\r\n    <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Contact a lawyer <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n    <button class=\"burger\" aria-label=\"Menu\">\u2630<\/button>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"shero\" style=\"padding-bottom:3.5rem\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\" style=\"grid-template-columns:1fr\">\r\n    <div>\r\n      <nav class=\"crumbs\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumbs\"><a href=\"\/en\/\">Home<\/a><span>\/<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><span>\/<\/span><b>Employment<\/b><\/nav>\r\n      <span class=\"eyebrow\">Employment<\/span>\r\n      <h1 style=\"max-width:28ch\">Dismissal due to illness in Germany \u2014 it&#8217;s not about the number of sick days alone<\/h1>\r\n      <p class=\"lead\">More than 220 working days on sick leave within five years, 72 of them in the last year before the dismissal. Yet the labour court in Koblenz declared the dismissal invalid, and the employer must keep the employee on. The judgment shows how German courts really count sickness absences \u2014 and why a shoulder operation does not count against you.<\/p>\r\n      <div class=\"art-meta\">\r\n        <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr. Artur Barczewski\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n        <div><b>Dr. Artur Barczewski<\/b>Rechtsanwalt \u00b7 attorney-at-law<\/div>\r\n        <div style=\"margin-left:1rem;border-left:1px solid rgba(255,255,255,.25);padding-left:1rem\">\u2248 8 min read<br>updated: July 2026<\/div>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<article class=\"sec\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">The story: 221 sick days in five years \u2014 and the employee won<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The claimant had worked since May 2002 as a machine operator in production for a German automotive supplier, most recently earning 3,687.38 euros gross per month. From 2020 his sickness absences grew markedly:<\/p>\r\n      <table style=\"border-collapse:collapse;margin:1.2rem 0 1.6rem;min-width:min(420px,100%)\">\r\n        <thead>\r\n          <tr><th style=\"text-align:left;padding:.5rem 1.2rem .5rem 0;border-bottom:2px solid var(--line)\">Year<\/th><th style=\"text-align:left;padding:.5rem 0;border-bottom:2px solid var(--line)\">Working days on sick leave<\/th><\/tr>\r\n        <\/thead>\r\n        <tbody>\r\n          <tr><td style=\"padding:.45rem 1.2rem .45rem 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line)\">2020<\/td><td style=\"padding:.45rem 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line)\">23<\/td><\/tr>\r\n          <tr><td style=\"padding:.45rem 1.2rem .45rem 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line)\">2021<\/td><td style=\"padding:.45rem 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line)\">47<\/td><\/tr>\r\n          <tr><td style=\"padding:.45rem 1.2rem .45rem 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line)\">2022<\/td><td style=\"padding:.45rem 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line)\">44<\/td><\/tr>\r\n          <tr><td style=\"padding:.45rem 1.2rem .45rem 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line)\">2023<\/td><td style=\"padding:.45rem 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line)\">35<\/td><\/tr>\r\n          <tr><td style=\"padding:.45rem 1.2rem .45rem 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line);color:var(--terra);font-weight:700\">2024<\/td><td style=\"padding:.45rem 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line);color:var(--terra);font-weight:700\">72<\/td><\/tr>\r\n        <\/tbody>\r\n      <\/table>\r\n      <p>At the end of January 2025 the employer gave notice of ordinary dismissal effective at the end of August 2025, citing the recurring sickness absences. The works council (Betriebsrat) objected. Within two weeks of receiving the notice, the employee filed an unfair-dismissal claim (K\u00fcndigungsschutzklage) with the labour court \u2014 and won. The Koblenz labour court declared the dismissal invalid and ordered the employer to continue employing him on unchanged terms until the dispute is finally resolved.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">How a German court reviews a dismissal due to illness<\/h3>\r\n      <p>If the business regularly employs more than ten people and the employment has lasted longer than six months, the employee is protected by the Dismissal Protection Act (KSchG). A dismissal due to illness (krankheitsbedingte K\u00fcndigung) is then valid only if it passes a three-stage test established by the Federal Labour Court (among others, BAG judgment of 25 April 2018, 2 AZR 6\/18):<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Stage 1 \u2014 negative health prognosis.<\/strong> Facts existing at the moment the notice is received must justify the expectation that the employee will continue to be ill frequently. The starting point is the absence record of the last three years before the dismissal (the reference period).<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Stage 2 \u2014 substantial impairment of business interests.<\/strong> The expected absences must cause concrete, serious disruption to operations or excessive financial burdens.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Stage 3 \u2014 balancing of interests.<\/strong> Even then the court weighs whether the burdens are truly unacceptable for the employer \u2014 taking into account length of service, age, the causes of the illnesses and whether milder means were available.<\/p>\r\n      <p>In the Koblenz case the dismissal already failed at stage one \u2014 and, independently of that, at stage three.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">The crux of the judgment: one-off illnesses are deducted<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The heart of the case lies in how you count. <strong>Only illnesses that may recur can support a negative prognosis.<\/strong> Absences caused by one-off events \u2014 an operation, an accident, a cured infection \u2014 are deducted from the record. In this case it looked like this:<\/p>\r\n      <ul>\r\n        <li><strong>2022:<\/strong> 17 of the 44 days dropped out \u2014 a reaction to a COVID vaccination (2 days), a COVID infection (8 days) and a middle-ear infection (7 days). <strong>27 days<\/strong> remained.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>2023:<\/strong> 10 of the 35 days dropped out \u2014 dental surgery (8 days), a head wound (1 day) and diarrhoea (1 day). <strong>25 days<\/strong> remained.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>2024:<\/strong> as many as 64 of the 72 days dropped out \u2014 shoulder pain, shoulder surgery and the recovery from it. <strong>8 days<\/strong> remained.<\/li>\r\n      <\/ul>\r\n      <blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.2rem 1.5rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);border-left:3px solid var(--terra);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\">\r\n        <p style=\"font-style:italic;margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201eDenn der Kl. hatte jedenfalls im Referenzzeitraum der Jahre 2022\u20132024 hinreichende einmalige Krankheitsursachen benannt, die sich nach allgemeiner Lebenserfahrung im Normalfall nicht wiederholen d\u00fcrften, insbesondere die Zahn- und Schulteroperationen.\u201c<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"margin-bottom:.7rem\">&#8220;The claimant had, in any event, named sufficient one-off causes of illness within the reference period 2022\u20132024 which, according to general life experience, would normally not recur \u2014 in particular the dental and shoulder operations.&#8221;<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0\">ArbG Koblenz, judgment of 24 September 2025, 4 Ca 473\/25 \u2014 our translation<\/p>\r\n      <\/blockquote>\r\n      <p>The court did not even commission a medical expert. It found it plausible that a tooth and a shoulder are \u2014 in the normal course of things \u2014 healed after surgery, and since the operations those conditions had caused no further absences.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">The six-week line: roughly 30 working days per year<\/h3>\r\n      <p>After deducting the one-off events, no year showed more than six weeks of absence. And that line is decisive. For the first six weeks of illness per year the employer is in any case legally obliged to <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/sick-leave-germany\/\">continue paying full wages (\u00a7 3 EFZG)<\/a>. From that rule the court drew a clear conclusion: <strong>absences of up to six weeks per year \u2014 in practice roughly 30 working days \u2014 are the employer&#8217;s normal risk and as a rule do not justify a dismissal.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n      <blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.2rem 1.5rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);border-left:3px solid var(--terra);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\">\r\n        <p style=\"font-style:italic;margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201eEs verblieben damit im Referenzzeitraum 2022\u20132024\/25 nur Fehlzeiten von weniger als sechs Wochen j\u00e4hrlich. [\u2026] Die \u2014 bei Zugang der K\u00fcndigung am 4.2.2025 \u2014 k\u00fcnftig zu erwartenden Fehlzeiten von weniger als sechs Wochen j\u00e4hrlich sind deshalb nach der Wertung des \u00a7 3 EFZG vom Arbeitgeber grunds\u00e4tzlich zu tragen.\u201c<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"margin-bottom:.7rem\">&#8220;That left, within the reference period 2022\u20132024\/25, only absences of less than six weeks per year. [\u2026] The absences of less than six weeks per year to be expected in the future \u2014 as at receipt of the notice on 4 February 2025 \u2014 must therefore, according to the value judgment expressed in \u00a7 3 EFZG, in principle be borne by the employer.&#8221;<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0\">ArbG Koblenz, judgment of 24 September 2025, 4 Ca 473\/25 \u2014 our translation<\/p>\r\n      <\/blockquote>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">&#8220;High costs&#8221; is not enough \u2014 the employer must show specifics<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The employer argued that the absences forced it to hire temporary workers, and that training them lowered output and burdened the rest of the team. The court found this far too general:<\/p>\r\n      <blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.2rem 1.5rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);border-left:3px solid var(--terra);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\">\r\n        <p style=\"font-style:italic;margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201eHier gen\u00fcgt es allerdings nicht, wenn der Arbeitgeber lediglich pauschal auf \u201ahohe Kosten\u2018 oder \u201aMehrbelastungen\u2018 von Arbeitskollegen verweist. Ein solch schlagwortartiger Sachvortrag ist dem Beweis nicht zug\u00e4nglich.\u201c<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"margin-bottom:.7rem\">&#8220;It is not sufficient here, however, for the employer merely to refer in blanket terms to &#8216;high costs&#8217; or &#8216;additional burdens&#8217; on colleagues. Such buzzword-style submissions are not amenable to proof.&#8221;<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0\">ArbG Koblenz, judgment of 24 September 2025, 4 Ca 473\/25 \u2014 our translation<\/p>\r\n      <\/blockquote>\r\n      <p>The employer must describe concrete past or present events: which orders suffered, what downtime occurred, which costs can be attributed precisely to this employee&#8217;s absences \u2014 and offer evidence. Without that, stage two of the test collapses.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">The missing BEM decided the case<\/h3>\r\n      <p>There was a second, independent reason the employer lost. If an employee is ill for more than six weeks in total within a year, the employer must offer a so-called occupational reintegration management process \u2014 betriebliches Eingliederungsmanagement (BEM, \u00a7 167(2) SGB IX). It is a confidential conversation, voluntary for the employee, about how to prevent further absences: adapting the workplace, changing the organisation of work or rehabilitation. The BEM must be offered within the year preceding the dismissal.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The employer claimed it had sent an invitation in April 2024 and a reminder in June 2024. The employee denied ever receiving them. And here is the next practical lesson \u2014 <strong>it is the employer who must prove that the BEM invitation reached the employee<\/strong>:<\/p>\r\n      <blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.2rem 1.5rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);border-left:3px solid var(--terra);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\">\r\n        <p style=\"font-style:italic;margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201eDie insoweit darlegungs- und beweisbelastete Bekl. ist f\u00fcr den Zugang der bEM-Einladungen beweisf\u00e4llig geblieben.\u201c<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"margin-bottom:.7rem\">&#8220;The defendant, which bears the burden of pleading and proof in this respect, failed to prove receipt of the BEM invitations.&#8221;<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0\">ArbG Koblenz, judgment of 24 September 2025, 4 Ca 473\/25 \u2014 our translation<\/p>\r\n      <\/blockquote>\r\n      <p>The consequence of a missing BEM is severe for the employer. It must then demonstrate in detail, of its own motion, that no milder solution \u2014 a different position, adapted working conditions, rehabilitation \u2014 was available. The courts set that bar very high, and in Koblenz the employer did not clear it. The dismissal was disproportionate, and the employee kept his job.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"hl rv\" style=\"max-width:760px\">\r\n      <span class=\"eyebrow\">Checklist<\/span>\r\n      <h3>Dismissed because of illness \u2014 what to do<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Write down the date you received the notice \u2014 from that day you have <strong>only three weeks to file a claim<\/strong> with the labour court (\u00a7 4 KSchG). After that, even a defective dismissal becomes effective. Collect certificates and diagnoses: which absences were one-off events (operations, accidents, cured infections) \u2014 those drop out of the record. Check whether the employer effectively invited you to a BEM meeting within the last year. And do not sign any termination agreement without legal advice.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">What this judgment means for you<\/h3>\r\n      <ul>\r\n        <li><strong>Frequent sick leave is not a verdict.<\/strong> The raw number of sick days \u2014 even 72 in a year \u2014 is not enough for a dismissal. What counts is the prognosis for the future.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Operations and accidents do not count against you.<\/strong> One-off and cured illnesses are deducted. It pays to present diagnoses and release your doctors from confidentiality for the proceedings.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Up to roughly six weeks per year you are essentially safe.<\/strong> Such absences are the employer&#8217;s normal risk and must as a rule be tolerated.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>A missing BEM works in your favour.<\/strong> If the employer cannot prove it effectively invited you to a BEM in the year before the dismissal, its position in court weakens dramatically.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Watch the three-week deadline.<\/strong> A claim filed late loses almost automatically \u2014 regardless of how flawed the dismissal was.<\/li>\r\n      <\/ul>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Frequently asked questions<\/h3>\r\n      <p><strong>Can my employer dismiss me while I am on sick leave?<\/strong><br>Yes \u2014 this is a common misconception. A notice of dismissal served during sick leave is permissible. The protection lies not in a ban on dismissals during illness, but in the strict requirements the employer must prove in court.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>How many sick days per year justify a dismissal?<\/strong><br>There is no fixed limit, but the guideline is six weeks per year within the three-year reference period. Below that line a dismissal due to illness is as a rule unjustified. Above it, the employer still has to prove a negative prognosis, concrete disruption and an offered BEM.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>What is a BEM and do I have to take part?<\/strong><br>It is an offer of a confidential conversation about preventing further absences, mandatory for the employer once you have been ill for more than six weeks in a year. For you, participation is voluntary, and declining cannot be held against you if the invitation did not meet the statutory requirements.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>What can I realistically gain by filing a claim?<\/strong><br>The court may declare that the employment relationship continues \u2014 with back pay for the litigation period and continued employment, as in the case discussed here. In practice many proceedings also end in a settlement with a severance payment, the amount of which depends on the strength of your position.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft)\">Analysis and quotations based on the reasons of the judgment of the Koblenz labour court (ArbG Koblenz) of 24 September 2025, case no. 4 Ca 473\/25, our translation. Three-stage test: settled case law of the Federal Labour Court, among others judgment of 25 April 2018, 2 AZR 6\/18.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"mini-cta rv\"><b>Received a dismissal because of illness?<\/b><span style=\"color:var(--ink-soft);font-size:.92rem\">Send us the notice and your absence record \u2014 we will assess the prognosis, the BEM issue and your realistic chances of keeping the job or negotiating a severance. Remember: you have three weeks.<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Send documents for review <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"margin-top:1.5rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.1rem\">Related topics<\/h3>\r\n      <div class=\"chips\" style=\"margin-top:.8rem\">\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/sick-leave-germany\/\">Sick leave in Germany \u2014 your rights \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Dismissed in Germany \u2014 the 21-day checklist \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/german-labour-court\/\">How a German labour court works \u2192<\/a>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/article>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"sec alt\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"lawyer rv\">\r\n      <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr. Artur Barczewski \u2013 author of the article\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <b>Dr. Artur Barczewski<\/b>\r\n        <div class=\"role\">Rechtsanwalt \u00b7 attorney-at-law<\/div>\r\n        <p>Author of this article. Represents clients before courts across Germany. <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\">Meet the author \u2192<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"cta-end\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <span class=\"eyebrow rv\">Contact<\/span>\r\n    <h2 class=\"rv d1\">Does your situation look similar?<\/h2>\r\n    <p class=\"rv d2\">Every case has details that change the outcome. Describe yours \u2014 you will get a concrete answer and a cost overview.<\/p>\r\n    <div class=\"row rv d3\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Describe your case <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"phone\">\u260e +49 335 553 10969<\/a>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<footer>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"foot-grid\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-brand\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"Logo BWLAW\" width=\"38\" height=\"26\"><\/div>\r\n        <p>Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<br>Rudolf-Breitscheid-Stra\u00dfe 10<br>15230 Frankfurt (Oder), Germany<br><a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\">+49 335 553 10969<\/a> \u00b7 <a href=\"mailto:info@bwlaw.de\">info@bwlaw.de<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Practice areas<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law \/ VOB\/B<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law<\/a><\/li>\n          <li><a href=\"\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/\">Defective car from Germany<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Legal<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"\/en\/\">Home<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/impressum\/\">Legal notice (Impressum)<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/privacy-policy\/\">Privacy policy<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"foot-bottom\">\r\n      <span>\u00a9 2026 BWLAW \u00b7 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<\/span>\r\n      <span>Rechtsanw\u00e4lte \u00b7 attorneys-at-law \u00b7 Frankfurt (Oder)<\/span>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/footer>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"sticky-cta\">\r\n  <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"call\">\u260e Call us<\/a>\r\n  <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"book\">Describe your case<\/a>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Construction law Debt collection Corporate law Employment law Cars Knowledge base Team Contact a lawyer \u2192 \u2630 Home\/Knowledge base\/Employment Employment Dismissal due to illness in Germany \u2014 it&#8217;s not about the number of sick days alone More than 220 working days on sick leave within five years, 72 of them in the last year before [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":4417,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":"","rank_math_title":"Dismissal Due to Illness in Germany \u2013 Your Rights | BWLAW","rank_math_description":"Frequent sick leave alone does not justify dismissal in Germany. One-off illnesses are deducted and up to six weeks a year is the employer's own risk.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"dismissal due to illness germany","rank_math_robots":[]},"class_list":["post-5021","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"bwlaw_import":{"lang":"en","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5021","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5021\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}