An unusual case before the Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court (LAG) revolved around the meaning of a Turkish phrase in German. Whether the dismissal of a warehouse worker was justified depended on this. The LAG came to the conclusion that the dismissal was invalid. The court ruled that even coarse language in the workplace does not justify dismissal as long as it is not a personal insult, but rather general criticism of the working conditions (LAG Düsseldorf, judgment of November 18, 2025 – 3 SLa 699/24).

The facts in court

The plaintiff in the case had been employed in the permanent night shift team of a goods distribution center since 2020. He had already received two warnings in April 2024 – one for leaving the workplace without permission and one for insulting his supervisor at the time. In August 2024, he came into conflict with his new shift supervisor. Initially, the plaintiff ignored the instructions of his shift manager and supervisor to help other colleagues. When she reprimanded him, he is said to have replied that she couldn’t tell him anything and that she was still a child. After the supervisor asked him to leave the hall to calm down, the man allegedly said in Turkish: “You fucked the mother of the shift.” From the employer’s point of view, this sounded like a crude and vulgar insult towards the shift supervisor or the “shift mother” – in other words, a gross disrespect towards the manager. The employer saw this as grounds for dismissal with notice.

The plaintiff filed an action for unfair dismissal against this. He denied having insulted his superior. He claimed that he had actually said in Turkish: “You made the shift mother cry.” This expression was a figurative criticism of the prevailing working conditions and meant that the shift supervisor was putting too much pressure on the employees. The statement did not constitute a personal insult to the supervisors. The plaintiff argued that the Turkish expression could easily be misunderstood or confused literally with the indecent version mentioned above. Due to the volume in the hall and the distance, the superior had misunderstood him.

Decision of the LAG: Vulgar criticism ≠ gross insult

Initially, the plaintiff had little success in court: The Düsseldorf Labor Court dismissed his claim in its entirety in November 2024. However, he appealed to the Düsseldorf Higher Labor Court and was successful. In its ruling, the LAG ruled in favor of the dismissed employee and declared the dismissal invalid. At the appeal hearing, the shift supervisor and two other employees were heard as witnesses in order to clarify the incident. After taking evidence, the LAG came to the following key conclusions:

The Chamber considered it proven that the plaintiff made the disputed statement in essence as claimed by the employer. The court was convinced that he had said “You fucked the mother of the shift” in Turkish. However, the court emphasized that the context and meaning of these words were decisive. It was clear from the witness testimony that this statement was not meant as a serious personal insult to the supervisor and was not understood as such by those present. Rather, it was a crude and vulgar criticism directed at the way the shift was managed as such. The employee was therefore complaining (albeit in an inappropriate choice of words) about the high pressure and conditions on the night shift, without wanting to denigrate the boss personally.

The court also took into account the particular circumstances of the situation. The statement was made in the heat of a conflict – the employee obviously felt under a lot of pressure and was angry. He had previously felt provoked by his superior (e.g. by being asked to leave the hall). Although the plaintiff’s choice of words was completely inappropriate, it was spontaneous and in an exceptional emotional situation. This should be taken into account in favor of the plaintiff.

Ultimately, the LAG found that the dismissal was disproportionate in this case. In the case of a dismissal in response to misconduct, it must always be examined whether a milder measure – such as a further warning – would have been sufficient (so-called ultima ratio in dismissal law). In this case, the balance of mutual interests weighed up in favor of the employee: On the one hand, there was the employer’s legitimate interest in respectful treatment and the enforcement of instructions. On the other hand, however, the plaintiff’s long-standing employment relationship and his interest in keeping his job were taken into account, especially as the statement was factual (relating to working conditions) and did not constitute direct personal defamation. In view of these circumstances and the existing high level of stress in the working environment, the court considered the immediate dismissal to be excessive.

The LAG did not allow an appeal to the Federal Labor Court. The judgment is therefore final – the plaintiff may retain his employment.

Background: When does a statement justify dismissal?

This case makes it clear that not every offensive-sounding statement in the workplace automatically justifies dismissal. In German employment law, the following applies in principle: serious insults or gross violations of respect towards superiors can constitute good cause for dismissal without notice or with due notice. In particular, direct insults or defamation towards the employer or superior are often judged strictly by the courts. Nevertheless, it always depends on the individual case – above all on the wording, context and intention of the statement.

A few important points for laypersons to understand and for practical use:

• Criticism vs. insult: Employees generally have the right to criticize grievances or high pressure in the workplace. If criticism is voiced in anger using coarse vocabulary, this does not automatically mean that the employee is personally insulting their superior. Courts draw a line here: If the statement was primarily directed against facts or conditions (e.g. against the working conditions or the “management style”) and not as an insult directly against the person of the boss, it can be considered an (exaggerated) expression of opinion. In this case, the court understood the plaintiff’s words as criticism of the stressful shift management – albeit in an impolite form – and not as a deliberate defamation of the supervisor.
• Spontaneous emotion vs. planned disrespect: Whether a statement justifies dismissal also depends on how and when it is made. A spontaneous statement made in the heat of the moment (e.g. in a heated argument) is assessed differently to a well-considered, deliberate insult. Courts look at whether the employee was provoked, was under stress or used abusive language, for example, and whether they apologized. In the present case, the previous conflict situation played a role: the statement in question was made in the heat of the moment, which at least partly explains its sharpness.
• Foreign language expressions can be deceptive: In international teams, misunderstandings can easily arise when someone rants or uses idioms in their native language. Translated, some expressions sound harsher than they actually mean. In such cases, employers should take a close look and ask what a phrase means before taking drastic action. In this case, it became clear that, taken literally, the Turkish phrase seemed extremely harsh, but culturally speaking it was more of a colloquial expression for “very high pressure/stress” on the shift. The LAG therefore used witnesses and context to determine the actual meaning instead of relying solely on the literal translation. In individual cases, it may therefore make sense for the employer to first consult interpreters or colleagues who speak the language in order to correctly classify the incident before giving notice.
• Proportionality and ultima ratio: Dismissal is generally the last resort (ultima ratio) in employment law. In the event of misconduct, the employer must always check whether a warning would have sufficed as a warning or whether the relationship of trust has been so shaken that it is unreasonable to expect the employment relationship to continue. In this case, although the employer had already issued a warning for a similar accusation, the new misconduct was – in the opinion of the court – not serious enough to immediately justify a dismissal. A milder measure (such as a further warning or transfer) might have been sufficient. For employees, however, this does not mean that verbal abuse is without consequences – rather, the case shows that the courts take a close look at how serious an offense is and carefully weigh up whether a dismissal is proportionate.

Conclusion for employers

Employees should of course try to remain respectful even when angry – what you say in the heat of the moment can quickly end up as grounds for dismissal. However, the Dismissal Protection Act protects against hasty dismissals: Not every strong expression justifies the loss of a job. The content and circumstances of the statement are decisive. The LAG Düsseldorf has made it clear that even vulgar criticism is not grounds for dismissal as long as it is clearly related to the matter at hand (in this case, the way the shift is managed) and is not meant as personal disparagement. In such borderline cases, a dismissal is invalid because it would be disproportionate as a result of a careful consideration of employee and employer interests.