Most settlement drafts contain a short clause nobody reads twice: the parties agree that the employment will not be re-established, that you will not reapply — and sometimes that your severance must be repaid if you are ever rehired. Rehire bans and severance clawbacks are the fine print that can block a future job at an entire corporate group or claw back your full severance years after you spent it. German law also knows the mirror image: a genuine right to be rehired (Wiedereinstellungsanspruch) when the grounds for an operational dismissal collapse shortly after notice. Here is what to strike, what to narrow and what to preserve before you sign.
The rehire ban (Wiedereinstellungsausschluss)
Typical wording: „The parties agree that no employment relationship will be established between the employee and the employer or its affiliated companies in the future. The employee undertakes not to apply; any application will not be considered.”
Three scope questions decide how dangerous the clause is:
- Which entities? Only the employing entity — or „affiliated companies” under §§ 15 ff. AktG, which in a large group can mean hundreds of employers, including ones in your niche you have never heard of.
- How long? Many drafts contain no time limit at all — a lifetime ban by default.
- Which routes? Broad drafts also capture temp-agency assignments, contractor and freelance engagements, and roles at companies later acquired by the group.
Are these clauses valid?
Courts generally accept no-rehire commitments as part of a negotiated settlement — the parties are ending a relationship and may agree not to resume it. But the outer edge is contested: an unlimited, group-wide, all-routes ban collides with the occupational freedom of Art. 12 GG, and in pre-formulated settlement text it faces review under § 307 BGB. Where a clause is ambiguous, § 305c Abs. 2 BGB resolves doubts against the drafter — the employer. The honest practical advice: do not sign expecting a court to rescue you later. Negotiate the scope down now, while it costs the employer nothing to concede.
The severance clawback
Rarer, but it appears in group templates: „If the employee is re-employed by the employer or an affiliated company within [24/36] months, the severance shall be repaid in full.”
Points for the enforceability analysis:
- Full repayment regardless of timing is disproportionate. A clause that claws back 100% whether you return after one month or after 35 is hard to square with § 307 BGB — the severance compensated the loss of the job, and that loss was real for the period you were out.
- Pro-rated, short-window clawbacks are more defensible — which is exactly why you should assume the employer’s version might hold.
- Gross versus net: clawbacks are usually drafted on the gross amount. You received net; repaying gross while chasing the tax refund through your next assessment is painful even when it works.
Case law on severance clawbacks in settlements is thin, which cuts both ways. Our position at the drafting table is simple: delete the clause. If the employer insists, cap it, pro-rate it monthly, limit it to the employing entity and a short window, and make it net-based.
The mirror image: your right to be rehired
German case law recognises a Wiedereinstellungsanspruch — a claim to re-establishment of the employment — in a narrow but valuable constellation. The Bundesarbeitsgericht’s doctrine: an operational dismissal is judged by the prognosis at the moment notice is received. If that prognosis collapses while your notice period is still running — the site closure is cancelled, a buyer appears, a major order lands, your position is re-created — the employer can be obliged to take you back on the old terms.
The limits are strict:
- The window is the notice period. Changes occurring after the employment has ended generally do not ground the claim — with exceptions, above all where a business transfer under § 613a BGB follows.
- Assert promptly. The claim must be raised without undue delay once you learn of the changed circumstances.
- Settlements can waive it. Standard broad settlement clauses („all mutual claims are settled”) can capture the rehire claim. If the restructuring news around your employer is fluid, carve it out — or at least know what you are giving up and price it into the severance.
This is one more reason not to let the three-week deadline pass: a pending Kündigungsschutzklage keeps every option — reinstatement, rehire, settlement — alive while the facts develop.
No-reapply clauses and the AGG
Your own promise not to reapply is one thing; the employer’s refusal ever to consider you is another. The general discrimination framework (AGG) protects applicants against disadvantage on protected grounds — age, disability, ethnic origin, sex, religion, sexual orientation. Having once litigated against the employer is not itself a protected characteristic, so a rejection „because of the old case” is hard to attack through the AGG alone. But where a rejection connects to a protected ground — say, the old dispute concerned disability accommodation or parental leave — the AGG analysis reopens. And within an ongoing employment relationship, § 612a BGB separately forbids punishing employees for lawfully exercising their rights. The practical lesson sits earlier in time: keep no-reapply language out of the settlement, or narrow it, rather than testing these doctrines years later.
Alumni reality: the HR flag nobody mentions
Independently of any clause, HR systems carry a rehire-eligibility field. An exit coded „not eligible for rehire” follows you through every group recruiter and many reference checks. In negotiated exits we therefore also negotiate the soft file: a neutral or positive exit code, an agreed reference letter wording inside the settlement, and an agreed answer for reference calls. Boomerang hiring is common in tight labour markets — do not let a template clause or a careless HR flag foreclose it.
Before you sign: the review points
-
Strike or shrink the group scope
Limit any rehire ban to the employing entity. „Affiliated companies” is almost always broader than the employer actually needs.
-
Time-limit everything
12–24 months is defensible; unlimited is not acceptable. Add an automatic expiry date.
-
Delete or defuse the clawback
First choice: delete. Fallback: monthly pro-rating, short window, net-based, employing entity only.
-
Fix the soft file
Reference wording in the settlement, neutral exit coding, agreed reference-call answer.
-
Mind the settlement clause
Check what the general „all claims settled” clause swallows — including a potential Wiedereinstellungsanspruch if the restructuring might reverse.
Worked example
Sales manager, €6,500 gross per month, seven years of service, operational dismissal. The employer’s settlement draft — negotiated at the Gütetermin, see our guide to court settlements — offers €50,000 severance but includes: (a) a rehire ban covering „the employer and all affiliated companies within the meaning of §§ 15 ff. AktG”, unlimited in time, and (b) full repayment of the €50,000 if she is re-employed anywhere in the group within 36 months.
We negotiate: ban limited to the employing entity and 18 months; clawback deleted entirely. The employer concedes both within a day — the clauses were template text, not strategy, and conceding cost nothing.
Fourteen months later a sister company in another city offers her a country-lead role at €95,000. Under the original draft, that move would have been contractually blocked — or would have triggered a €50,000 gross repayment against a severance she had received largely as net. Under the negotiated version she takes the job and keeps every euro. The difference between the two drafts: one review, zero additional severance demanded, roughly €50,000 preserved.
Frequently asked questions
Are rehire bans in settlements even legal?
As negotiated settlement terms, generally yes — courts respect the parties’ decision not to resume the relationship. The open flank is scope: unlimited, group-wide, pre-formulated bans face § 307 BGB and Art. 12 GG scrutiny. Negotiate rather than litigate the point.
Can they really claw back the gross amount when I only received net?
Clawback clauses are usually drafted gross, and that is precisely the problem: you would repay money you never saw and then chase the tax through your next assessment. One more reason the clause should be deleted or converted to a net, pro-rated mechanism before signing.
Does a clawback trigger if a group recruiter approaches me?
Most clauses attach to the fact of re-employment, not to who initiated it. If a clause survives negotiation at all, insist that it does not apply where the employer side initiates contact — an easy concession that closes an unfair scenario.
I already signed a broad clause. Any way out?
Possibly — ambiguities are read against the drafter, and disproportionate clauses can fail review. But this is a fact-specific fight with an uncertain outcome. Have the signed text analysed before you rely on the clause being invalid, and before you accept a group offer that could trigger it.
My old position was readvertised a month after my exit. Was the dismissal even real?
Two angles: if your notice period was still running when circumstances changed, the Wiedereinstellungsanspruch may apply; and a rapid readvertisement is strong evidence that the operational grounds were pretextual — highly relevant if your Kündigungsschutzklage deadline has not yet run out. Move quickly on both.