Can Employees Unilaterally Cancel Parental Leave? German Federal Labor Court Provides Clarity for Employers

Under Section 15 (1) of the German Federal Parental Allowance and Parental Leave Act (Bundeselterngeld- und Elternzeitgesetz, “BEEG”), entitlement to parental leave requires, among other things, that the employee live in the same household as the child and personally care for and raise the child. The question before the court was what effect it has if these requirements cease to be met after parental leave has been requested but before it begins.

The employee, who had worked for the employer since 2011, requested parental leave from May 23, 2024, through May 23, 2025. Before the leave began, he separated from the child’s mother and moved out of the shared household. The child remained with the mother.

The employee subsequently requested to continue working beyond May 22, 2024. He argued that, because he no longer lived with his child, the statutory requirements were no longer satisfied and the requested parental leave could not begin. He further asserted that the loss of his entitlement to parental allowance constituted a case of special hardship that justified either early termination of the parental leave or not commencing it at all. The employer declined to continue employing him because it had already hired a fixed-term replacement.

The Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court initially ruled in the employee’s favor. The employer’s appeal to the Federal Labor Court, however, was successful.

According to the Federal Labor Court, an employee is generally bound by a request for parental leave. A subsequent loss of the statutory eligibility requirements does not prevent a previously and validly requested period of parental leave from beginning. This binding effect protects employers in particular when they have made organizational and staffing arrangements for the employee’s leave of absence.

Under Section 16 (3) BEEG, an employer’s consent is generally required to terminate parental leave early or extend it. According to the Federal Labor Court, this provision applies by analogy when an employee does not wish to commence parental leave that has already been requested. The employer had not consented to the requested change, nor had the employee sought a court order requiring the employer to give its consent. Instead, he merely sought a declaration that his parental leave had not commenced.

In cases of special hardship or the birth of another child, an employer may deny a request for early termination only in writing, within four weeks, and for urgent operational reasons. Examples of special hardship include serious illness, severe disability or the death of a parent or child, as well as circumstances that seriously jeopardize the parents’ economic livelihood.

The employee, however, had not demonstrated such special hardship. The mere loss of entitlement to parental allowance as a result of no longer sharing a household was insufficient. In particular, the employee had not alleged that he could no longer support himself or provide adequate financial support for his child.

The decision makes clear that, once parental leave has been validly requested, subsequent changes in an employee’s personal circumstances do not place the leave solely at the employee’s discretion. For employers, the ruling has the following key implications:

As of October 12, 2026