Judith Hahn is Professor of Canon Law at the University of Bonn and McDonald Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.
On 17 March 2026, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) issued a judgment regarding Catholic institutions in Germany and their employment relationships, in Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung v. JB. The ruling established that a Catholic employer, in this case a pregnancy counseling office at Caritas, cannot terminate a contract of employment solely on the basis of the employee’s leaving the Catholic Church. The Court determined that such a dismissal constitutes unequal treatment, unless the employee’s church membership is a genuine, legitimate, and necessary requirement for the specific occupation. While acknowledging the right of churches to self-determination in employment matters, the CJEU determined the dismissal to be unlawful, as the employer did not generally require staff to be Catholic and had employed non-Catholics in similar roles.
The Court also underscored that leaving the church—frequently motivated by financial considerations, such as not having to pay church tax—cannot be construed as a general breach of loyalty. If employees continue to perform their duties professionally (e.g., counseling according to Catholic values), then, for most occupations, this professional loyalty takes precedence over formal membership status. Whether this is the case must be evaluated by examining the specific occupation more closely. Therefore, the Court obliged the national courts to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether an employee’s leaving the church poses a probable and substantial risk to the employer’s mission. The case will now return to the German Federal Labor Court, which will apply the CJEU’s ruling to reach its final judgment on the matter.
Church Employment in Germany
To understand the ruling, it is helpful to briefly review the legal framework of church employment in Germany. These labor relations are somewhat distinct from general labor law due to the broad constitutional protection religious communities enjoy under Article 140 of the German Basic Law. This article grants them significant autonomy in their “own” matters, including employment.
The Catholic Church, a major employer with close to 800,000 employees in Germany, has exercised this freedom by establishing its own labor laws that bypass parts of secular legislation deemed unfitting for ecclesiastical employment. Regarding individual labor contracts, Catholic institutions traditionally obliged their employees to adhere to certain standards of behavior and imposed so-called “loyalty obligations” on them regarding their private lives. Employees of these institutions, such as Caritas, were contractually bound to act in accordance with the church’s religious and moral principles. Consequently, employers could dismiss staff for “disloyal” private conduct, such as remarrying after divorce or supporting pro-choice positions.
However, recent landmark rulings from the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (Schüth v. Germany, among others), which are beyond the scope of this essay, have limited this power to some degree. These rulings require the justification of church-specific reasons for “hiring and firing” employees in proportionality tests. One prominent judgment, Vera Egenberger v. Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung (2018), specifically addressed whether a church employer could legitimately require religious affiliation for a project-based role as an anti-racism and equal treatment consultant. Yet it established groundbreaking criteria for evaluating various employment issues. The CJEU clarified that church employers cannot require religious affiliation if the occupation is not religious in essence and does not inherently necessitate church membership as a genuine, legitimate, and justified occupational requirement. The Court ruled that national courts must review whether a requirement, such as being a member of a certain church, is justifiable in light of these criteria. This judgment put an end to the practice of German courts relying solely on the official position of religious employers when assessing a case. Instead, they must now conduct an effective judicial review to ensure that occupational requirements established by religious employers are genuine, legitimate, and justified regarding the occupation in question.
The CJEU judgment IR v. JQ (2018) expanded this principle to loyalty obligations. It clarified that employees cannot be dismissed for behavior contrary to church morals in their private lives unless their actions create a probable and substantial risk to the employer’s mission and credibility. In this case, the CJEU established that a Catholic hospital could not dismiss a Catholic head physician for civilly remarrying after divorce for various reasons. For instance, it had not dismissed non-Catholics in similar positions who had divorced and remarried. Thus, the Court focused on whether the employer’s requirements were consistent with regard to holders of specific positions. Additionally, the physician’s remarriage was not seen as a valid reason for dismissal because his primary duties were providing medical care and managing a department. As it did not understand the employee’s duties to be religious in nature, the Court did not consider adherence to Catholic marriage doctrine significant.
Egenberger and IR v. JQ put an end to the broad autonomy of church institutions in labor issues. However, they did not abolish church autonomy. Instead, they opted for a more balanced and justified approach. The courts ruled that the employee’s right to nondiscrimination takes precedence unless the employer can prove a direct, objective, religious link between a specific job requirement and the occupation.
Influence of CJEU Jurisprudence on Ecclesiastical Law
The above-mentioned jurisprudence served as a wake-up call for many Catholic bishops. Initially, many decried the European intervention as the end of ecclesiastical labor relations in Germany and a violation of religious freedom. However, most have begun interpreting it differently and adjusting ecclesiastical labor law accordingly. A revised Basic Regulations for Ecclesiastical Service (Grundordnung) was published by the German bishops in November 2022. The document represents the most significant reform of ecclesiastical labor law in decades. It acknowledges that church institutions, such as hospitals and kindergartens, operate in a pluralistic society.
For the first time, the Grundordnung portrays a diverse workforce as a positive reflection of society rather than a threat to the church’s ethos. One core aspect of the reform was shifting the focus from judging employees’ private lives to evaluating their professional performance and the institution’s credibility. Personal conditions, beliefs, and choices, including sexual orientation, gender identity, or relationship status, are no longer considered breaches of loyalty justifying dismissal. Only a very small group of employees, primarily those in leadership or teaching roles within the church, are expected to adhere to church doctrine in their personal lives.
Even so, leaving the church remained one contentious point of reform. For Catholic employees, it was considered the ultimate breach of loyalty that went beyond personal morals, as a rejection of the employer’s very foundation. Therefore, leaving the church usually resulted in dismissal according to the revised Grundordnung (Article 7 section 4). Exceptions were possible in serious individual cases.
Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung reversed this perspective, making dismissal the exception. As in Egenberger and IR v. JQ, the CJEU ruled that specific requirements, such as affiliation with the Catholic Church, are nondiscriminatory if they are genuine, legitimate, and justified with regard to a specific position. Thus, while the judgment does not restrict religious employers’ ability to require religious affiliation for employment, it demands that this requirement be justified for a particular occupation. It also questions whether leaving the church is necessarily an act of aggression against the employer. If a Catholic employee leaves the church for financial reasons and does not act in a way that goes against church values, then the mere act of leaving is not enough reason to assume disloyalty. Therefore, if church employers hire Catholics and non-Catholics for the same positions—as they do in most hospitals, schools, kindergartens, and charities—they cannot dismiss Catholic employees for simply leaving the church, unless the employees show hostility toward the employer’s ethos.
Conclusion
The judgment in Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung is a consequential continuation of the path begun with Egenberger and IR v. JQ. While some argue that the CJEU grossly underestimated the significance of disloyalty associated with leaving the church, its ruling should not be overly concerning for church employers who embrace the paradigm shift initiated by the new Grundordnung. The revised Grundordnung shifts responsibility for maintaining an employer’s Catholic identity from the individual employees and their personal conduct to the institution itself. Identity is now maintained through organizational culture, service quality, and professional ethics rather than the private life choices or religious affiliation of the staff. Rulings such as Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung drive Catholic institutions to transition from basing their identity on individual coercion to basing it on institutional culture. This includes a change of focus on religious freedom. Rather than demanding their freedom to dismiss qualified employees, Catholic employers are called to respect their employees’ freedom, even if this allows them to leave the church. This change can enhance the credibility of Catholic institutions.