Is termination due to whistleblowing possible?

The German economy is suffering from a chronic shortage of skilled workers , and the federal government tirelessly emphasizes the importance of attracting and retaining international talent for Germany as a business location. However, while visa facilitation and the digitalization of public administration are debated, one concern often remains hidden for many highly qualified expats in their daily work: What happens if I report problems within the company ? In an era where integrity and compliance are becoming core values of modern corporate culture worldwide, the existential question arises whether exposing misconduct can lead to professional ruin. For foreign professionals, whose residency permits are often tied to their jobs, the fear of reprisals weighs more heavily than for locals. The Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) promises security in this regard, but the legal reality is nuanced.

The legal bulwark against reprisals

Since its enactment, the German Act on Protection against Whistleblowing (HinSchG) has been a central pillar of German labor law. In our legal practice, we are increasingly observing that employees are using the mechanisms of the Act to demand transparency. The core of this protection is found in Section 36 Paragraph 1 of the HinSchG , which establishes a strict prohibition of reprisals against whistleblowers. Dismissal represents the most drastic form of such reprisal. The Act goes even further: According to Section 36 Paragraph 2 of the HinSchG, the burden of proof is reversed. If an employee suffers discrimination after reporting a misconduct, it is legally presumed that this measure was a reaction to the whistleblowing.

For highly skilled professionals from abroad, who often work in highly regulated sectors such as IT, finance, or engineering, this protection is theoretically an important safety net. We expressly welcome this strengthening of employee rights , as it fosters a culture of openness that international talent expects from a modern labor market. Nevertheless, we must caution against misinterpreting whistleblowing as an absolute "free pass" against any form of termination of employment.

The limits of the reversal of the burden of proof

Despite the seemingly strong position of employees, current case law shows that the reversal of the burden of proof is not automatic. We always advise our clients that a temporal connection between a report and a dismissal alone is not sufficient to automatically render a dismissal invalid. According to case law, the employee must provide substantiated reasons why the measure could be considered retaliation. A plausible explanation of a causal link is required.

This is an important distinction. As a law firm, we support the protection of genuine whistleblowers, but we also recognize the need to ensure that the law is not misused for extraneous purposes . The legislature did not intend for whistleblowers to be "immunized" against justified dismissals , for example, in cases of serious performance deficiencies. If a report is made merely as a tactical maneuver shortly before a foreseeable dismissal during the probationary period, courts will examine very closely whether this constitutes an abuse of rights.

Documentation as a crucial tool

In legal disputes, the party with the stronger documentation often wins. We frequently see employers basing dismissals on objective grounds that existed long before any notification. If these grounds—such as underperformance or misconduct—are properly documented, the employer can effectively refute any presumption of retaliation. Complete documentation of feedback sessions and performance reviews, in cases of doubt, overrides the legal presumption.

For employees with a migration background, this means: professionalism and transparency are the best protection. Anyone reporting grievances should do so through the official channels outlined in Section 2 of the HinSchG ( Protection Against Misconduct Act) and simultaneously ensure that their own work performance remains unassailable. The HinSchG protects against acts of retaliation, but not against the consequences of substandard work . We often criticize the lack of awareness within companies : many skilled workers are unaware of precisely which violations fall under the scope of protection. Not every internal conflict warrants reporting under the HinSchG, which can lead to unpleasant surprises in a serious situation.

Probationary period and the timing of termination

A particularly sensitive area is termination of employment within the six-month waiting period stipulated by the German Protection Against Unfair Dismissal Act (KSchG) or during the probationary period. In Germany, there is generally extensive freedom to terminate employment during this time. The German Protection Against Unfair Dismissal Act (HinSchG) does not abolish this freedom, but merely reinforces it with the prohibition of reprisals. When advising companies , we emphasize the importance of timing. A termination immediately after a report is filed always raises suspicion.

Nevertheless, it must be emphasized: the probationary period remains a probationary period. If the grounds for dismissal demonstrably existed beforehand, the termination remains lawful. We see this as a point of tension with the political debate surrounding skilled worker immigration . If highly qualified immigrants feel they can be arbitrarily dismissed despite legal protections, this severely damages Germany's reputation. Therefore, the objective and legally sound application of the German Protection Against Immigration Act (HinSchG) is also a factor in Germany's attractiveness as a business location.

Conclusion

In summary, whistleblowing does not automatically preclude dismissal. While Section 36 of the German Act on Protection against Whistleblowing (HinSchG) offers a significant procedural advantage through the reversal of the burden of proof, this protection is subject to strict conditions. Employees must ensure that their report falls within the material scope of the law, while employers can demonstrate, through objective documentation, that the decision was based on sound reasoning. Whistleblowing protects integrity but does not serve as a safeguard against dismissal due to a lack of professional competence. A thorough and objective examination of the facts is the only path to legal certainty for both parties.

→ Book your appointment here now!