The Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG) — Germany’s General Equal Treatment Act — protects employees and job applicants against discrimination on six protected grounds and backs that protection with real money: compensation for financial losses plus a separate award for the discrimination itself, typically in the range of one to three gross monthly salaries. But the AGG contains one of the harshest deadline traps in German employment law: you must assert your claim in writing within two months of learning of the discrimination (§ 15(4) AGG) — miss that window and the claim is gone, however blatant the discrimination was. In our practice, this two-month deadline is the single most common reason otherwise strong AGG claims by international employees fail. Everything else about the AGG is comparatively employee-friendly, including a burden-of-proof rule that most expats have never heard of.
The six protected grounds (§ 1 AGG)
The AGG prohibits disadvantage on grounds of:
- Race or ethnic origin — including disadvantage linked to skin colour, descent, language and accent. Note: nationality as such is not a listed ground, but treatment tied to foreign origin, “non-German” name or non-native German very often qualifies as (indirect) ethnic-origin discrimination.
- Gender — including pregnancy-related disadvantage and unequal pay.
- Religion or belief.
- Disability — closely connected with the special dismissal protection for severely disabled employees (see our article on dismissal of severely disabled employees).
- Age — protecting both older and younger employees.
- Sexual identity.
The AGG covers the entire employment lifecycle: job advertisements, applications, hiring, promotion, pay, training, day-to-day treatment and — with some technical peculiarities — dismissal.
Direct and indirect discrimination
Direct discrimination (§ 3(1) AGG)
Less favourable treatment because of a protected ground: the promotion goes to a less qualified colleague after remarks about your age; a role is advertised for “young, dynamic candidates”; a pregnant employee is excluded from a bonus round.
Indirect discrimination (§ 3(2) AGG)
An apparently neutral rule or criterion that in practice disadvantages people with a protected characteristic — unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and proportionate. Classic examples: blanket “perfect German” requirements for roles where working-level German suffices, physical requirements that exclude disabled employees, or part-time disadvantages that predominantly hit women.
The AGG also covers harassment on a protected ground (§ 3(3) AGG) and instructions to discriminate (§ 3(5) AGG).
The deadline trap: two months, then three
The AGG enforcement timeline has two stages:
- Written assertion within two months (§ 15(4) AGG). You must assert your claims in writing against the employer. The period starts when you receive the rejection (in application and promotion cases) or when you otherwise learn of the discrimination. E-mail satisfies the form in practice, but the letter must make clear that you are claiming damages and Entschädigung under the AGG — a mere complaint is risky.
- Court filing within three months (§ 61b ArbGG). An Entschädigung claim must then be filed with the labor court within three months after the written assertion.
Where the discrimination takes the form of a dismissal, a third clock runs in parallel: the three-week deadline for the Kündigungsschutzklage. Discriminatory dismissals are attacked through the dismissal-protection system (§ 2(4) AGG), with AGG standards feeding into the assessment — and the case law additionally allows Entschädigung claims alongside.
Burden of proof: § 22 AGG helps you more than you think
You do not have to prove discrimination. Under § 22 AGG, it is enough to establish indicia (Indizien) that make discrimination appear likely — then the burden shifts to the employer, who must prove that no protected ground played any role. Recognised indicia include:
- Discriminatory wording in job ads or internal communications (“digital native”, “native speaker”, “fits our young team”).
- Remarks by decision-makers about age, origin, accent, pregnancy, religion.
- Statistical patterns — e.g., only employees over 55 selected for redundancy.
- Deviations from the employer’s own procedures, or shifting justifications.
- Questions in interviews about pregnancy, disability or origin.
This is why documentation matters so much: one forwarded e-mail or one witness to a remark can carry the entire case.
What you can claim
Material damages (§ 15(1) AGG)
Compensation for financial loss caused by the discrimination — typically the pay difference from a denied promotion or the lost salary from a discriminatory non-hiring, where you can show you would have been selected.
Entschädigung for the discrimination itself (§ 15(2) AGG)
A separate award for the non-material harm — no proof of financial loss and no proof of fault required. In practice, labor courts award one to three gross monthly salaries in most cases, more where the discrimination was severe, repeated or humiliating. One statutory cap: in hiring cases where you would not have been hired even with a discrimination-free process, the Entschädigung is capped at three monthly salaries.
Age discrimination in redundancies and social plans
Age is the ground that matters most in restructurings. Two areas to check:
- Social selection: age may be used as a selection criterion under the KSchG, but crude mechanisms — e.g., targeting everyone above a certain age, or “rejuvenation” as the stated goal — are challengeable.
- Sozialplan formulas: age-based severance factors are broadly permitted (§ 10 AGG), but hard cut-offs for employees close to pension eligibility, and especially reduced payments for employees who could draw a disability pension, have been struck down by the courts. If your Sozialplan payout drops sharply because of your age or disability status, have the formula reviewed before you accept anything.
Job ads and the “native speaker” problem
Particularly relevant for expats: job advertisements requiring “German as mother tongue” or “native speaker” are treated by the labor courts as an indicium of ethnic-origin discrimination, because native-language status is tied to origin rather than to actual ability. A requirement of “very good” or “business-fluent” German is generally fine if the role plausibly needs it. Rejected applicants facing “native speaker” screens can bring Entschädigung claims — provided the application was serious and the two-month deadline is kept. The same logic applies internally, for example where a promotion is denied “because of the accent” rather than measured language ability.
Worked example
Software project manager of Turkish origin at a 400-employee Düsseldorf IT company, gross salary €5,200/month. He applies for an internal team-lead role carrying an €800/month raise. The role goes to a less experienced German colleague. Two weeks later, a colleague forwards him an e-mail in which the department head wrote that the team “needs someone who presents as a native German speaker to clients”.
Timeline and outcome:
- Written assertion of § 15(1) and § 15(2) AGG claims sent 3 weeks after he learned of the e-mail — well within the two-month window.
- Claim filed at the Arbeitsgericht 6 weeks later, within the § 61b ArbGG period.
- The e-mail is a strong § 22 AGG indicium; the employer cannot prove origin played no role, and its justification shifts between the assertion letter and the court response.
- Claimed: Entschädigung of 3 gross monthly salaries (€15,600) plus material damages for the pay difference.
- Settlement at the Gütetermin: €14,000 Entschädigung, placement in the next team-lead round with a defined development plan, and removal of a related negative performance note from the file.
Without the two-month assertion letter, the identical facts would have been worth exactly €0.
Frequently asked questions
Is nationality a protected ground under the AGG?
Not as such — the list in § 1 AGG does not include nationality. But disadvantage linked to foreign origin, name, language or accent regularly qualifies as direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin. Most “you’re not German enough” cases can be framed this way.
Does the two-month deadline apply while I am still employed?
Yes. § 15(4) AGG applies to current employees just as much as to rejected applicants. Waiting to see “how things develop” or pursuing only an internal complaint does not stop the clock.
Can I claim anything if I would not have gotten the job anyway?
Yes. The Entschädigung under § 15(2) AGG compensates the discrimination itself, not the lost job — capped at three monthly salaries in that scenario. Material damages under § 15(1) AGG, by contrast, require showing you would have been selected.
How much Entschädigung do courts actually award?
Most awards fall between one and three gross monthly salaries, calibrated to severity, duration and the employer’s conduct. Severe harassment cases and repeat violations go higher. Settlements often add non-monetary elements: reference corrections, removal of warnings, promotion commitments.
I believe my dismissal was discriminatory. AGG claim or Kündigungsschutzklage?
Both tracks, one priority: file the Kündigungsschutzklage within three weeks — discriminatory dismissals are primarily attacked there, and discrimination indicia dramatically strengthen the case and the settlement value. An Entschädigung claim under § 15(2) AGG can be pursued alongside; the two-month assertion deadline applies to it.
Does my written assertion need to state an exact amount?
It must identify the incident and make clear that you claim damages and Entschädigung under the AGG. The Entschädigung amount can be left to the court’s discretion, but material damages should be quantified as precisely as possible. Have the letter drafted or reviewed by a lawyer — defective assertions are a recurring source of lost claims.