LfDI (Baden-Württemberg) - 4 Sa 70/20
|LfDI - 4 Sa 70/20
|Article 4(15) GDPR
Article 7(4) GDPR
Article 9(2)(a) GDPR
|National Case Number/Name:
|4 Sa 70/20
|European Case Law Identifier:
|Landesrechtsprechung Baden-Württemberg (in DE)
The State Labor Court of Baden-Württemberg held that in the letter of invitation to BEM, the names of the parties to whom health data will be disclosed must be explicitly listed and the data subject must be informed of the consent and its necessity.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
An employee (data subject) was unable to work for more than six weeks within a year due to illness, and the employer (controller) was liable for continued pay during absence. The controller invited the data subject to occupational integration management (BEM) by letter. The aim of BEM is to determine the health restrictions that have resulted in absences from work and to find possibilities of reducing them in the future to avoid dismissal. The data subject did not respond to this invitation, and the controller terminated the data subject's employment.
The data subject complained about the correctness of the BEM initiation as they had not received the enclosures named in the invitation letter. The data subject requested that the employment relationship would not be terminated, and the controller was of the opinion that due to the continued payment of wages, it could no longer be reasonably expected to continue the employment.
The court found that termination of employment relationship had not occurred, and the controller was ordered to continue employing the data subject. The controller appealed as they considered the judgment to be in error.
Holding[edit | edit source]
The court found the termination to be socially unjustified under §1(2) KSchG, which underlines steps for determining the social justifiability of dismissal. The balancing of interests was disproportionate as the controller did not initiate the BEM in an appropriate manner.
The court applied Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, according to which the data subject could have voluntarily disclosed their health data defined in Article 4(15) GDPR to the site manager who was not involved in the BET. The court emphasised that in such a case, the data subject should be informed explicitly that the consent is voluntary becuase it is not necessary for implementing the BEM pursuant to Article 7(4) GDPR. However, the site manager was not on the list of members to whom the health data was disclosed. Thus, the data subject could not have known from the invitation letter that the disclosure of his health data to the site management could take place only with additional consent and within the BEM procedure and purpose.
The court concluded that the requirements for proper information about the use of data were not met and that the data subject's employment interest outweighs the interests of the controller. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the data subject was entitled to a general claim for continued employment.
Comment[edit | edit source]
Share your comments here!
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]
The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.