Facts
The case concerns the termination of the employment relationship between the company [A. AG] (appellant) and the employee [B.] (respondent). [B.] , born in 1951, was employed as a key account manager at [A. AG] since January 1, 1999. On February 11, 2010, the employer informed him of its intention to terminate the employment relationship. By termination dated February 16, 2010, the employment relationship was dissolved with effect from the end of August 2010, observing a six-month notice period, and immediate release from work was ordered.
[B.] subsequently filed a lawsuit against [A. AG] , claiming that due to the abusive termination, he should be paid a penalty compensation in the amount of four monthly salaries. Furthermore, his former employer had deprived him of a transitional pension, and he should be paid 100% - not just 80% - of his previous earnings as continued salary in the event of illness.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the lower instances that the termination was abusive. The appellant had not held a clarifying discussion with the respondent prior to the termination and had not given him a last chance to change his behavior. This constituted a breach of the employer's duty of care, especially in view of the respondent's age and his long-standing loyalty to the company. The appellant had taken various measures to keep the respondent in the company, but a prior clarifying discussion had been omitted.…