Germany: Pets at the Workplace – What are the rules?

Even after several years of tacit acceptance by the employer, the employee has no legal claim to bring their pet to work without a specific contractual basis.

Duesseldorf Higher Labour Court on 8 April 2025, Ref. 8 GLa 5/25 (Settlement)

The Decision Lies with the Employer

In principle, it is the employer's responsibility to decide whether pets may be brought to the workplace. This stems from the employer's general right to issue instructions, enabling them to define company rules and regulations, including those relating to pets. As the owner of domiciliary rights, the employer is free to decide whether to allow dogs or other pets, unless special safety or hygiene regulations prohibit pets in certain work areas, or unless the pet is a guide or assistance dog for a blind or disabled employee.

The employer can also set conditions for bringing the pet to work. For example, the employer can stipulate whether the pet may be taken along at all times or only in exceptional cases, what vaccinations the animal needs, and whether it must wear a muzzle or be house-trained. So, in general, the employer is not obliged to allow the pet to be brought to the workplace. This would conflict with the employer's duty of care towards other employees, such as those who are afraid of dogs or have allergies. Something else may result from an explicit contractual provision. However, such clauses are rarely found in employment contracts.

Equal Rights

The general principle of equal treatment must be considered when allowing pets in the workplace. If some employees are allowed to bring their pets to work, the same entitlement applies to all employees, unless there are objective reasons to justify differential treatment. For example, permission to bring a small dog to the workplace does not automatically also include so-called 'list dogs' (classified as dangerous).

Even Years of Tolerance Do not Constitute a Claim 

In practice, bringing pets, especially dogs, to the workplace is often merely tolerated without a contractual basis. 

If an employer then prohibits its employees from bringing their pets to work one day, employees will often argue that they have a legal right arising from an individual or overall commitment, or that a company practice (“betriebliche Übung”) has occurred. In these cases, a legal claim may have arisen. However, case law has already pointed out in the past that this requires the employer to have a legally binding intention when tolerating employees bringing pets to work. Whether this is the case must be assessed on the basis of the extent to which the employee could infer the employer's intention to bind itself from the employer's conduct, taking into account all the accompanying circumstances. The employer must indicate that it wishes to waive part of its right to issue instructions. This is generally not the case if the employer merely tacitly tolerates the employee bringing their pet to work over a longer period of time.

Clarification by the Duesseldorf Higher Labour Court

The Duesseldorf Higher Labour Court (Ref. 8 GLa 5/25) has now confirmed that even years of tacit acceptance does not constitute legally binding permission or approval.

In the underlying case, which attracted a lot of media attention, the employee regularly brought her eleven-year-old rescue dog Lori to work over a period of six years, despite pets being generally prohibited according to the employment contract. The employer, a game hall operator, one day decided to enforce the ban. The employee then tried to force her employer to continue tolerating her bringing Lori to work by means of a preliminary injunction. However, she was unsuccessful at the Duesseldorf Labour Court. On appeal to the Duesseldorf Higher Labour Court, the relevant chamber also informed her that her chances of success were rather low. It could be assumed that the prohibition in the employment contract would continue despite the years of tolerance. The employer justified the ban on the grounds that customers might be allergic to dog hair or afraid of dogs. Ultimately, the parties agreed a settlement to continue the employment relationship.

In the absence of a clear regulation, there was no evidence in this case of a specific individual commitment or a company practice from which it could be concluded that the employer actually wanted to waive part of its right of instruction. Tacitly tolerating the employee bringing her dog did not constitute a sufficient basis for establishing a claim. 

Employer’s Right of Revocation – Permission is not Unconditional

Even assuming the existence of an individual commitment or a company practice, the plaintiff's chances of success would not have been promising for another reason.

According to case law, if an employer has made a commitment, either individually or collectively, or established a company practice, regarding pets at work, employees cannot assume that permission to bring their dogs to work has been granted unconditionally and cannot be revoked. Instead, permission is granted on the condition that the pet does not disrupt business operations or pose a threat. Therefore, the employer must be able to revoke permission if the pet behaves unexpectedly or causes problems for colleagues. This follows from the employer's duty of care towards other employees. If the employer had actually wanted to grant unconditional permission, they would have had to do so expressly.

The revocation of permission must be based on the employer’s reasonable discretion. This presupposes that the essential circumstances of the case have been considered, and the interests of both parties have been appropriately taken into account. This is usually the case if the employer can claim that business operations are disrupted by the fact that other employees or customers feel threatened by the dog, suffer from a dog hair allergy (Duesseldorf Higher Labour Court, 24 March 2014, Ref.: 9 Sa 1207/13, BeckRS 2014, 67430) or the dog is not house-trained. With regard to the threat, according to case law, it is sufficient if the dog at least subjectively appears threatening to other employees or customers and this can be plausibly demonstrated by the employer. However, a specific veterinary opinion or an expert assessment confirming that the pet is actually dangerous is not required (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Labour Court, 8 September 2022, Ref.: 2 Sa 490/21, BeckRS 2022, 43847).

Right of Co-Determination of the Works Council

If a works council has been elected, it generally has a right of co-determination in matters relating to workplace regulations in the company in accordance with Section 87 para. 1 no. 1 German Works Constitution Act (“BetrVG”). Whether the issue of taking pets into the workplace also falls under this regulation has not yet been conclusively clarified by case law; however, the better arguments speak in favour of this. Therefore, the works council is likely to have a right of co-determination with regard to collective matters, which could be regulated by a works agreement if necessary.

Nevertheless, measures and instructions that directly affect employees' employment contract obligations and thus their individual work behaviour are generally not subject to co-determination. For example, this would apply to an individual work-related instruction if the pet were to interfere with the performance of the work.

Practical Note: What Employers Should Bear in Mind

Whether or not pets are allowed in the workplace is generally up to the employer. Many employers encourage pets, particularly dogs. They are aware that dogs can positively influence the well-being and health of their employees, and hope that these effects will also improve the working atmosphere.

Informal agreements or toleration generally do not trigger a permanent, binding entitlement for employees to bring their pets to work. Even explicit permissions or commitments cannot generally be understood as unconditional, as it must remain possible for the employer to react to changes in the animal's behaviour, for example, to fulfil its duty of care towards other employees. The situation is only different in the case of guide or assistance dog for a blind or disabled employee, as the employer is obliged to set up a workplace suitable for the disabled. This means that there may be a legal right to bring pets to work in these cases.

Nevertheless, if you want to allow your employees to bring their pets to work, it is advisable to implement clear, uniform rules to avoid conflict. In this case, it is advisable to stipulate that permission will only be granted in individual cases after prior written application and only subject to revocation. It should be made clear that a reason for revocation exists in particular if the pet interferes with health and safety at work or the operation of the business or poses a threat to employees, visitors, etc. or is perceived as such. Permission should also be made dependent on the pet having pet owner's liability insurance. If necessary, proof of vaccination or an assessment of the dog’s character can also be requested. The employer should clarify in advance whether other employees are affected by allergies or are afraid of dogs.