Dismissed for leaving a church: What rights do employees have?

What happened in the latest case?

An employee of a Catholic association provided pregnancy counselling. She left the Catholic Church in 2013 while on parental leave. After unsuccessful discussions about rejoining, the association dismissed her in 2019. Other women working in the same counselling service were not members of the Catholic Church. The employee had contractually agreed to follow the Catholic counselling principles. There was no indication that she was no longer willing or able to comply with them (CJEU, paragraphs 22 to 26 and 65).

Following the CJEU’s preliminary ruling of 17 March 2026, the association’s appeal to the Federal Labour Court failed. The official press release of 5 November 2026 states that both dismissals were invalid. It emphasises that the same duties were performed without Catholic membership and that the employee had not otherwise publicised her departure from the church. This latest result is reported on the basis of the press release; the legal framework below rests on the CJEU’s published full judgment.

Why do the specific duties matter?

Freedom of religion also protects the decision not to belong to a church. Churches, in turn, have a right to religious autonomy. The CJEU requires a real balance between these rights and protection from religious discrimination. Neither the employee’s decision to leave nor the employer’s religious character determines the dismissal issue on its own (paragraphs 43 to 48).

Under section 9 of Germany’s General Equal Treatment Act and the EU legal framework, a church-membership requirement must relate to the job. A direct link may exist, for example, where a person helps shape the religious ethos or is expected to represent the organisation credibly to outsiders. A general reference to a church community of service is insufficient. Courts must review the particular requirement and its proportionality (CJEU, paragraphs 51 to 58 and 67 to 68).

The distinction was particularly important in the counselling case. Compliance with the religious counselling principles relevant to the work could be required. However, the comparable non-Catholic colleagues made it difficult to establish that formal church membership was also necessary. Leaving the church alone does not prove that an employee will disregard the employer’s values in future (paragraphs 64 to 71 and 78 to 80).

What are the limits of the ruling?

A supplementary comparison illustrates the limit. In its judgment of 21 May 2026, 8 AZR 194/25 (F), the Federal Labour Court upheld a church-membership requirement for a particular policy role. The successful candidate was to represent the organisation’s religious positions independently in reporting on the UN Convention against Racial Discrimination. The court weighed the specific interests and dismissed the unsuccessful applicant’s compensation claim (paragraphs 29 to 44).

That comparison concerns recruitment and different responsibilities, rather than the pregnancy counsellor’s dismissal. Our assessment: the actual function is decisive. A religious employer cannot automatically apply identical requirements to every role; employees likewise cannot infer that their own dismissal is invalid simply because someone else won another case.

Which documents help assess your case?

Our practical recommendation is to compare the employer’s reasons for dismissal with the actual day-to-day work. For example, identical duties may call for a different assessment from a particular leadership or representative function. Useful documents include:

• The dismissal letter and the exact date it was received.
• The employment contract, job description and any incorporated church rules.
• Actual duties, authority to represent the organisation and available descriptions of comparable roles.
• Correspondence about leaving or being asked to rejoin the church and any alleged breaches of duty.

Which deadline must not be missed?

To challenge a written dismissal in court in Germany, an employee must generally file a dismissal-protection claim within three weeks of receiving it (section 4, first sentence, of the Dismissal Protection Act; section 13(1), second sentence, for extraordinary dismissals). Do not wait for further discussions to conclude. Contacting the law firm does not replace filing a claim. Any additional claims and their deadlines require separate assessment.