The Egenberger case has shaped church labor law for years. After almost 14 years of litigation, the Federal Labor Court has ruled: The Diakonie was allowed to reject the non-denominational applicant Vera Egenberger in the specific case without unlawfully discriminating against her(BAG, judgment of May 21, 2026, Ref.: 8 AZR 194/25 (F)). The decision nevertheless remains important for applicants and employees of church employers, as it shows that churches are not allowed to demand religious affiliation across the board, but must justify this in a comprehensible manner for the specific position.

A years-long legal battle over job applications, religion and equal treatment

The starting point of the case was an application from 2012. Vera Egenberger, a non-denominational social education worker and equal opportunities expert, had applied for a position at Diakonie Deutschland. The advertised position was related to anti-racism work and representing Diakonie externally. Egenberger was not invited to the interview and saw this as discrimination due to her lack of church affiliation. She therefore demanded compensation in accordance with the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG).

The legal dispute went through several instances. It not only involved the German labor courts, but also the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This is precisely why the case has become known far beyond the individual case. Because at its core, it concerned a question that affects many people: can a church employer reject applicants because they do not belong to a church?

What the BAG decided

The BAG dismissed Vera Egenberger’s complaint on May 21, 2026. In the court’s opinion, there was no unlawful discrimination in the specific case. Diakonie had not unlawfully discriminated against the applicant because of her religion or lack of religious affiliation. The decisive factor for the court was that church affiliation could be regarded as a justified professional requirement for the specific job advertised. It was apparently particularly important that the job also involved representing the diaconia externally.

For legal laypersons, this means that the court did not say that church employers may always require church membership. Rather, it examined whether this requirement was justified for this specific position. In this case, the BAG came to the conclusion that Diakonie was allowed to require church membership.

Why the ruling is nevertheless not a free pass for church employers

At first glance, the decision sounds like a victory for the church. However, it is not quite that simple. The Egenberger case had already set important limits for church employers before the final ruling. The ECJ had made it clear that churches may not decide on their own whether a job necessarily requires a certain denomination. This decision must be subject to judicial review. In addition, the church employer must be able to justify why religious affiliation is essential, lawful and justified for the job in question.

This is precisely what ver.di also points out. Although the union regrets the negative individual decision for Vera Egenberger, it believes that the rights of employees working for church employers have been strengthened. According to the ECJ line emphasized by ver.di, a church may only demand denominational affiliation if this is actually necessary for the specific job.

This is a key point for anyone applying to church organizations. A Catholic clinic, a Protestant welfare association or a church counseling center may therefore not automatically award every position only to church members. For many jobs, for example in administration, care, technology or service, church membership will often be more difficult to justify than for jobs with religious preaching, a leadership function or explicit external representation of the church.

What does the General Equal Treatment Act mean in this context?

The General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) protects people from discrimination based on religion or belief, among other things. In principle, no one may be treated less favorably in a job application simply because he or she does not belong to a particular religion. However, there is a special regulation for churches and religious communities. Under certain conditions, they can demand that employees belong to their church or identify with their religious identity.

This special status is linked to the church’s right to self-determination. In principle, churches are allowed to organize their own affairs. At the same time, however, they are not outside of state law. This is precisely where the legal tension lies: on the one hand, there is the right of the church to protect its religious identity. On the other hand, there is the right of applicants not to be unjustifiably discriminated against.

The Egenberger case shows that these interests must be carefully weighed up against each other. There is no one-size-fits-all formula. The decisive factors are always the specific position, the actual tasks and the question of whether the church affiliation is really necessary for these tasks.

What consequences does the BAG ruling have for applicants?

For applicants, the ruling means one thing above all: a rejection due to a lack of church affiliation may or may not be lawful. Anyone who applies to a church employer and is not considered because of their denomination should check exactly what tasks the position involves. The more closely the job is linked to religious preaching, representation of the church or leadership responsibility, the more likely it is that church membership can be justified. The more neutral or technical the job is, the more likely it is that discrimination may be problematic.

It is also important that church employers are able to make their requirements clear. It is not enough to simply write in a job advertisement that church membership is desired or required. Rather, it must be clear why this requirement is necessary for the specific job.

Why the Egenberger case has changed church labor law

Even though Vera Egenberger was ultimately unable to enforce a claim for compensation before the Federal Labor Court, her case has had a lasting impact on church labor law. Today, church employers must examine more closely whether membership of a church can really be required for a particular position. However, the legal dispute has also made it clear that church employers can no longer simply refer to their right to self-determination. In the event of a dispute, they must explain why religious affiliation is essential for a specific job. This creates more transparency and better opportunities for employees to defend themselves against unjustified discrimination.

What employers should learn from the ruling

Church employers should formulate job advertisements particularly carefully in future. If church membership is required, it should be clear why it is necessary for the job in question. A general reference to the church profile is not always sufficient. The decisive factors are the specific tasks, the responsibility of the position and the proximity to the religious message of the institution.

Non-church employers can also learn something from the case. Discrimination in the application process remains a legally sensitive issue. Reading tip: Dismissal after leaving the church: What the ECJ ruling means for employees. Requirements for applicants must be objectively justified in accordance with the provisions of the AGG. Anyone who makes certain personal characteristics a prerequisite should always check whether this requirement is really necessary and legally permissible.

What remains of the decision

The BAG ruling in the Egenberger case is a defeat for the plaintiff, but not a return to old conditions in church labor law. The decision confirms that churches are allowed to demand the denomination in certain cases. At the same time, however, this remains the case: Such a requirement must be specifically justified and subject to judicial review.