{"id":5059,"date":"2026-07-12T18:51:24","date_gmt":"2026-07-12T16:51:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/knowledge-base\/summary-dismissal-germany\/"},"modified":"2026-07-12T18:51:24","modified_gmt":"2026-07-12T16:51:24","slug":"summary-dismissal-germany","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/summary-dismissal-germany\/","title":{"rendered":"Summary dismissal in Germany \u2014 the employer&#8217;s two-week deadline and the warning requirement"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n<div id=\"progress\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/div>\r\n\r\n<!-- EN version of zwolnienie-dyscyplinarne-w-niemczech. Own text. Sources verified\r\n     12.07.2026: ArbG Arnsberg 31.3.2026 - 1 Ca 877\/25 (full text so far only in\r\n     BeckRS 2026, 9344, finality unknown), BAG 23.1.2014 - 2 AZR 582\/13 and\r\n     BAG 10.6.2010 - 2 AZR 541\/09 verified at bundesarbeitsgericht.de,\r\n     \u00a7 626 BGB and \u00a7 4 KSchG at gesetze-im-internet.de. -->\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=\"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:30ch\">Summary dismissal in Germany \u2014 the employer&#8217;s two-week deadline and the warning requirement<\/h1>\r\n      <p class=\"lead\">Summary dismissal (fristlose K\u00fcndigung) is the sharpest weapon in German employment law \u2014 and the one that fails most often in court. The employer has only two weeks from learning the facts, and for misconduct that could be corrected it must as a rule issue a formal warning (Abmahnung) first. A recent judgment of the Arnsberg labour court shows how strictly courts enforce both requirements \u2014 even against an employee who tried to poach colleagues for a competitor.<\/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 9 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 case: a departing employee and poached colleagues<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The employee had resigned herself, effective 31 March 2026, to join a competitor. In November 2025 the employer came to suspect that she had tried to recruit two specific colleagues for her new employer. <strong>On 11 November 2025 it heard her out<\/strong> (Anh\u00f6rung), she denied everything \u2014 and the employer believed her and decided to take no action.<\/p>\r\n      <p>From 25 November and 6 December 2025 new information surfaced: she had allegedly tried to lure away <strong>two further colleagues<\/strong>. On 8 December 2025 the employer terminated the employment <strong>with immediate effect<\/strong> (au\u00dferordentliche fristlose K\u00fcndigung). The employee sued \u2014 and won before the Arnsberg labour court: by judgment of 31 March 2026 (1 Ca 877\/25) the court held the summary dismissal invalid.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The decision rests on two pillars worth knowing well beyond this particular case: the <strong>two-week deadline<\/strong> of \u00a7 626(2) BGB and the <strong>warning requirement<\/strong> flowing from the principle of proportionality.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Two weeks to decide \u2014 \u00a7 626(2) BGB<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The German Civil Code is blunt: termination for good cause <strong>may only be declared within two weeks<\/strong>, and the period starts when the party entitled to terminate learns of the facts relevant to the termination. Under the settled case law of the Federal Labour Court the clock starts once the employer has <strong>reliable and reasonably complete positive knowledge<\/strong> of the circumstances \u2014 knowledge that allows it to decide whether it wants to continue the employment (Federal Labour Court, judgment of 23 January 2014, 2 AZR 582\/13). The purpose is protective: the employee should quickly know whether the employer will act on an incident, and an employer who waits shows that continued cooperation is not unbearable after all.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The Arnsberg court applied this mechanism without mercy. Since the employer heard the employee on 11 November 2025, it knew the accusations concerning the first two colleagues by that day at the latest. That it believed her and dropped the matter was read merely as a <strong>changed assessment of how serious the accusations were<\/strong> \u2014 not as a lack of knowledge. The court&#8217;s conclusion: the dismissal of 8 December 2025, insofar as it relied on those same events, came <strong>too late<\/strong>.<\/p>\r\n      <p>That left the second set of accusations \u2014 the poaching attempts the employer only learned about from 25 November 2025. For those the deadline was met. And here the second pillar of the judgment took over.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">A warning before dismissal \u2014 proportionality<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Summary dismissal is always a measure of last resort. For conduct-related breaches the courts as a rule require a prior formal warning \u2014 <strong>an Abmahnung is dispensable only<\/strong> where it is clear from the outset that the employee will not change the behaviour even after a warning, or where the breach is so severe that tolerating it even once is obviously \u2014 and recognisably for the employee \u2014 out of the question (Federal Labour Court, judgment of 10 June 2010, 2 AZR 541\/09).<\/p>\r\n      <p>The Arnsberg court did accept that actively luring away colleagues during an ongoing employment relationship can be a breach of duty an employer need not accept. Two circumstances decided the case, however. First \u2014 <strong>the employment was ending on 31 March 2026 anyway<\/strong>, so in the court&#8217;s view the employer could reasonably be expected to answer the new accusations with a warning rather than instant dismissal. Second \u2014 after the hearing of 11 November 2025 the employer <strong>never told the employee it would not tolerate such conduct<\/strong>. A dismissal based on later but essentially identical events was therefore disproportionate.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">A judgment one can argue with<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The decision raises serious doubts \u2014 and both sides of a dispute should know them. An employer who <strong>believes a denying employee<\/strong> assumes the alleged incident simply did not happen. It is hard to speak of &#8220;reliable and reasonably complete positive knowledge&#8221; of a reason for dismissal in that situation \u2014 and without such knowledge the two-week period does not even start. The deadline of \u00a7 626(2) BGB is the statutory embodiment of forfeiture by delay (Verwirkung) \u2014 an employer who gives an employee the benefit of the doubt hardly creates the impression of tolerating a breach it believes never occurred. The warning point invites similar pushback: expecting an employer to announce consequences for conduct it does not believe took place sounds detached from reality, and the imminent end of the employment says nothing about the gravity of the breach itself.<\/p>\r\n      <p>Whether the judgment is final is not known \u2014 an appeal may be pending. The practical lesson stands regardless: <strong>labour courts are prepared to start the clock at the first hearing and to punish employers for not clearly announcing consequences<\/strong>. Employees can build a defence on that. Employers should not test it on themselves.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">What this means for employees<\/h3>\r\n      <ul>\r\n        <li><strong>Reconstruct the timeline of the employer&#8217;s knowledge.<\/strong> What did it know, since when and from whom. If more than two weeks passed between learning the facts and the dismissal, the dismissal has a serious weak spot.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>An earlier hearing or disciplinary talk works in your favour.<\/strong> If the employer knew the accusations, heard you out and let the matter rest, it should not return to the same events weeks later.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Ask about the warning.<\/strong> For conduct-related accusations the lack of a prior Abmahnung is one of the most common reasons summary dismissals fail \u2014 especially where the employment was about to end anyway.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Mind the three weeks.<\/strong> An unfair-dismissal claim (K\u00fcndigungsschutzklage) must be filed within three weeks of receiving the written notice \u2014 after that even a defective dismissal generally becomes effective.<\/li>\r\n      <\/ul>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">What this means for employers<\/h3>\r\n      <ul>\r\n        <li><strong>Treat the hearing as the start of the clock.<\/strong> Even if you believed the employee, a court may find you knew the accusations on the day of the talk. Decide and communicate within two weeks.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>If you let a matter rest, leave a record.<\/strong> A short letter stating that the conduct, if confirmed or repeated, will trigger consequences up to termination costs little and removes the argument that won this case.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>New facts call for a new, fast reaction.<\/strong> When further incidents surface, act immediately and consider whether a warning must come first. The closer the end of the employment, the more strictly a court will judge going straight to summary dismissal.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Document internal findings.<\/strong> Who established what and when \u2014 in court it is the employer who must prove the two-week deadline was met.<\/li>\r\n      <\/ul>\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>Summary dismissal on your desk \u2014 what to check first<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The date the notice was received \u2014 the three-week claim period runs from it. Written form signed by an authorised person. The timeline: since when did the employer know the accusations and did it act within two weeks. Earlier talks or hearings and their outcome. Whether a warning (Abmahnung) was issued and what it covered. A written demand for the reasons of the dismissal \u2014 \u00a7 626(2) sentence 3 BGB grants that right. Securing evidence: correspondence, witnesses, notes of meetings.<\/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\">Frequently asked questions<\/h3>\r\n      <p><strong>I received a summary dismissal in Germany. How much time do I have?<\/strong><br>Three weeks from receipt of the written notice to file an unfair-dismissal claim with the labour court (K\u00fcndigungsschutzklage, \u00a7 4 KSchG). After that even a defective dismissal generally becomes effective. It is the single most important deadline of the whole case.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>The employer had known the accusations for a long time. Can it still dismiss me summarily?<\/strong><br>Termination for good cause is only permitted within two weeks of the employer gaining reliable and reasonably complete knowledge of the facts. Once that deadline has passed, only ordinary notice with the regular notice period remains \u2014 and that too is subject to judicial review.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Does a summary dismissal always require a prior warning?<\/strong><br>For conduct-related breaches, as a rule yes. A warning is dispensable only where it obviously would not change the employee&#8217;s behaviour or where the breach is so severe that tolerating it even once is plainly out of the question. Those are exceptions the employer must be able to justify.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Can trying to poach colleagues for a competitor justify summary dismissal?<\/strong><br>Actively luring away co-workers while the employment still runs can breach the duty of loyalty and, depending on the circumstances, may even justify instant dismissal. In the Arnsberg case the dismissal failed because of the missed deadline and the missing warning, not because the conduct was found acceptable.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>The employer heard me out, believed me and dropped it \u2014 then dismissed me for the same thing. What now?<\/strong><br>According to the Arnsberg labour court such a dismissal is out of time as to the known accusations and, as to new but similar events, disproportionate without a prior announcement of consequences. The judgment has drawn criticism and its finality is unknown, so the defence should rest on all available arguments at once.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft)\">This overview draws on the judgment of the Arnsberg labour court of 31 March 2026 (1 Ca 877\/25, finality unknown), the judgments of the Federal Labour Court of 23 January 2014 (2 AZR 582\/13) and of 10 June 2010 (2 AZR 541\/09) as well as \u00a7 626 BGB and \u00a7 4 KSchG. This article is for information purposes and does not replace legal advice in an individual case.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"mini-cta rv\"><b>Received a summary dismissal in Germany?<\/b><span style=\"color:var(--ink-soft);font-size:.92rem\">Send us the notice and a short description \u2014 we will assess the deadline, the warning issue and your realistic chances. Remember: you have three weeks to file the claim.<\/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\">\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/notice-periods-germany\/\">Notice periods in Germany \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/dismissal-due-to-illness-germany\/\">Dismissal due to illness in Germany \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/employer-refuses-sick-pay-germany\/\">Employer refuses to pay sick pay \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law \u2014 how we work \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\" 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. Handles employment law matters \u2014 from dismissals to labour court litigation \u2014 across Germany. <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\">View profile \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 receive a concrete answer and a fee estimate.<\/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 and 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 in Germany<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law and company formation<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Information<\/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\/\">Imprint<\/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 \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<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\r\n{\r\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\r\n  \"@graph\": [\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"Article\",\r\n      \"headline\": \"Summary dismissal in Germany \u2014 the employer's two-week deadline and the warning requirement\",\r\n      \"description\": \"Summary dismissal in Germany: the two-week deadline of \u00a7 626(2) BGB, the prior warning requirement and the lessons of ArbG Arnsberg 1 Ca 877\/25 for employees and employers.\",\r\n      \"inLanguage\": \"en\",\r\n      \"author\": { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Dr. Artur Barczewski\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\" },\r\n      \"publisher\": { \"@type\": \"LegalService\", \"name\": \"BWLAW \u2013 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski & Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/\" },\r\n      \"datePublished\": \"2026-07-12\",\r\n      \"dateModified\": \"2026-07-12\",\r\n      \"mainEntityOfPage\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/summary-dismissal-germany\/\"\r\n    },\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\r\n      \"mainEntity\": [\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"I received a summary dismissal in Germany. How much time do I have?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Three weeks from receipt of the written notice to file an unfair-dismissal claim with the labour court (K\u00fcndigungsschutzklage, \u00a7 4 KSchG). After that even a defective dismissal generally becomes effective.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"The employer had known the accusations for a long time. Can it still dismiss me summarily?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Termination for good cause is only permitted within two weeks of the employer gaining reliable and reasonably complete knowledge of the facts. Once that deadline has passed, only ordinary notice with the regular notice period remains.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Does a summary dismissal always require a prior warning?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"For conduct-related breaches, as a rule yes. A warning is dispensable only where it obviously would not change the employee's behaviour or where the breach is so severe that tolerating it even once is plainly out of the question.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Can trying to poach colleagues for a competitor justify summary dismissal?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Actively luring away co-workers while the employment still runs can breach the duty of loyalty and may even justify instant dismissal. In the Arnsberg case the dismissal failed because of the missed deadline and the missing warning, not because the conduct was found acceptable.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"The employer heard me out, believed me and dropped it \u2014 then dismissed me for the same thing. What now?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"According to the Arnsberg labour court such a dismissal is out of time as to the known accusations and, as to new but similar events, disproportionate without a prior announcement of consequences. The judgment has drawn criticism and its finality is unknown, so the defence should rest on all available arguments.\" }\r\n        }\r\n      ]\r\n    }\r\n  ]\r\n}\r\n<\/script>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Construction law Debt collection Corporate law Employment law Knowledge base Team Contact a lawyer \u2192 \u2630 Home\/Knowledge base\/Employment Employment Summary dismissal in Germany \u2014 the employer&#8217;s two-week deadline and the warning requirement Summary dismissal (fristlose K\u00fcndigung) is the sharpest weapon in German employment law \u2014 and the one that fails most often in court. The [&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":"Summary dismissal in Germany: two-week deadline | BWLAW","rank_math_description":"Summary dismissal in Germany: two weeks from knowledge of the facts, the warning requirement and your three-week deadline to sue. ArbG Arnsberg 1 Ca 877\/25.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"summary dismissal in Germany","rank_math_robots":[]},"class_list":["post-5059","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\/5059","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=5059"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5059\/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=5059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}