Tensions between colleagues are part and parcel of everyday working life. But where does normal conflict end and legally relevant workplace bullying begin? The Mannheim Labour Court addressed this question in a recent judgement dated 11 June 2026 (Case No. 5 Ca 139/25).
The facts of the case
An administrator in a human resources department found the behaviour of a direct colleague so distressing that she took sick leave in March 2024. Upon her return, she complained of anxiety, feelings of exclusion and physical symptoms. Mediation proposed by her line manager failed because the colleague in question refused to take part. Nor did the company’s return-to-work support programme yield a solution.
The employee subsequently brought a claim seeking disciplinary action against her colleague, specifically dismissal, transfer or a written warning. She also claimed compensation under the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG). The AGG protects employees from discrimination on the grounds of certain characteristics such as ethnic origin, gender or belief.
The court’s decision
The Mannheim Labour Court dismissed the claim. It found that neither discrimination nor bullying had been proven. The judges emphasised that conflicts in the workplace are inevitable and that not every unpleasant interaction between colleagues can automatically be classified as bullying.
The court’s reaction to one specific example was particularly striking: amongst other things, the claimant had regarded her colleague’s failure to thank her for birthday wishes as bullying. The court expressed open astonishment that the dismissal of a colleague had been sought on the basis of such a trivial matter. It was also made clear that no one is obliged to think exclusively positively of their colleagues or to behave in a friendly manner towards them in their private lives.
When does it constitute bullying?
The court also defined where the line lies between behaviour that constitutes legally relevant bullying and other forms of behaviour. This line is crossed when behaviour is intended to, or has the effect of, infringing upon a person’s dignity or creating a working environment characterised by intimidation, hostility or humiliation. This is an important benchmark that goes far beyond mere unfriendliness or differences of opinion.
As neither discrimination nor bullying had been established, the court held that the employer was under no obligation to take action against the colleague. The court also rejected any claim for compensation.
What does this mean for employees and employers?
For employees, this ruling means that psychological stress caused by conflicts with colleagues must be taken seriously; however, legal claims require a specific and demonstrable breach. A subjective perception is not sufficient.
- Employers are not obliged to take disciplinary action against employees on the basis of mere allegations.
- Systematic humiliation, hostility or intimidation, on the other hand, do indeed give rise to a duty to act.
- Preventative measures such as mediation or workplace integration support are useful, but cannot be enforced.
Anyone who feels they are being bullied at work, or any employer faced with such allegations, should seek legal advice to clarify the exact boundaries. The distinctions are often blurred in individual cases.
Source: Haufe: Law
This post and the accompanying image were created with the help of AI and have been editorially reviewed.
