Dismissal Based on Suspicion

Dismissal Based on Suspicion / Verdachtskündigung

April 15, 2026

Dismissal Based on Suspicion (Verdachtskündigung)

A dismissal based on suspicion (Verdachtskündigung) is a distinctive instrument under German employment law. It allows an employer to terminate an employment relationship even where the alleged misconduct has not been fully proven. What matters is not conclusive proof of the act itself, but a strong suspicion based on objective facts that destroys the trust required for the continuation of the employment relationship. For employers, this can be commercially significant because it allows a swift response to serious allegations. At the same time, it is legally delicate, because labour courts examine its requirements very closely.

Requirements for a Dismissal Based on Suspicion

Under the case law of the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG), a dismissal based on suspicion requires strong and objectively verifiable grounds for suspicion. Mere assumptions, rumours, or a vague sense of mistrust are not enough. Rather, the suspicion must be based on specific facts supporting the conclusion that the employee may have committed a serious breach of duty.

In addition, the suspicion must relate to conduct which, if proven, would in itself be capable of justifying termination without notice for a compelling reason or, depending on the circumstances, an ordinary termination. Typical examples include theft, fraud, misappropriation, working time fraud, the disclosure of trade secrets, or criminal offences committed in the workplace, such as assault or sexual harassment.

A decisive issue is always the balancing of interests in the individual case. The key question is whether, having considered all relevant circumstances, the employer can reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship. Relevant factors include the gravity of the suspicion, the employee’s role, the length of service, any previous record free of complaints, and whether less severe measures — such as a warning or reassignment — would have been sufficient.

Hearing the Employee Is a Mandatory Requirement

Hearing the employee is not a mere procedural formality. In cases of dismissal based on suspicion, it is a mandatory requirement for validity. Before issuing the dismissal, the employer must give the employee an opportunity to respond to the specific allegations and to present exculpatory circumstances.

It is not enough to refer to the suspicion only in general terms. The employee must be able to understand exactly what conduct is being alleged. At the same time, the employee must be given sufficient time to respond. If a proper hearing is not conducted, the dismissal will generally be invalid. In practice, this is one of the most common and most costly errors in dismissal protection proceedings.

Distinction from Dismissal for Proven Misconduct

A dismissal based on suspicion must be clearly distinguished from a dismissal for proven misconduct (Tatkündigung). In the latter case, it is established that the employee actually committed the breach of duty. The dismissal is then based on the proven facts.

A dismissal based on suspicion, by contrast, operates below that evidentiary threshold. The employer cannot conclusively prove that the act occurred, but the suspicion is so serious, and so firmly grounded in objective facts, that continued employment appears unreasonable.

In practice, it is often strategically advisable to rely on both the allegation of misconduct itself and the suspicion as alternative grounds for termination. This reduces litigation risk. If full proof of the misconduct cannot be established, the suspicion may still stand as an independent ground for termination. The reverse is equally true. The court examines both grounds separately.

Which Time Limits Apply?

Where the dismissal based on suspicion is issued as a termination without notice for a compelling reason, the time limit under section 626 (2) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) must be observed. The official English translation states that notice of termination may only be given within two weeks, and that the period begins when the person entitled to give notice obtains knowledge of the facts relevant for the notice of termination.

For employers, this period is often critical. On the one hand, the facts must be investigated carefully. On the other hand, the investigation must not take so long that the statutory period expires. What is required, therefore, is a swift, structured, and well-documented internal investigation. Particularly in sensitive matters involving potential criminal offences or reputational risks, companies should seek legal advice at an early stage to ensure that the next steps are legally sound.

Practical Importance for Employers

For employers, dismissal based on suspicion is an effective but error-prone instrument. Acting too quickly may render the dismissal invalid. Waiting too long may lead to missed deadlines. Inadequate fact-finding or a defective hearing may cause the employer to lose the case despite serious suspicions.

Employers should therefore pay close attention to the following points: a careful investigation of the facts, complete documentation of the findings, a legally sound hearing of the employee, compliance with the applicable deadlines, and — where a works council exists — its proper hearing before the dismissal is issued. Particularly in matters involving significant financial consequences or reputational sensitivity, early strategic legal advice is often decisive.

What Employees Should Bear in Mind

For employees, a dismissal based on suspicion is equally serious. It may have far-reaching professional and financial consequences, even though the alleged misconduct has not been proven. It is therefore crucial to examine at an early stage whether the suspicion was genuinely substantiated, whether the employee was properly heard, and whether less severe measures should have been considered.

In dismissal protection proceedings, the outcome often turns on detail. Procedural errors, incomplete investigations, or an insufficient balancing of interests may lead to the dismissal being set aside. Anyone affected should therefore seek legal advice without delay.

Conclusion: Only Reliable if Carefully Prepared

Dismissal based on suspicion is recognised under German law, but it is valid only under strict conditions. It requires a strong suspicion based on objective facts, a proper hearing of the employee, and a careful balancing of interests. For employers, it is a viable instrument only if it has been prepared in a procedurally robust manner. For employees, close legal scrutiny is almost always worthwhile.

In practice, cases involving dismissal based on suspicion rarely concern employment law doctrine alone. They often also involve economic consequences, compliance issues, and, not infrequently, personal reputation. That is precisely why careful legal assessment is essential. Please contact us.

* If, in the interest of readability, we use only the generic masculine or the generic feminine in future, this expressly includes all genders.