Facts

The complainant had been employed by the Municipality of Baar since February 2012, from 1 January 2016 at a 65% workload. She was unfit for work due to illness or pregnancy in May and June 2017 and from 27 June 2017 until the birth of her son on xxx February 2018.

On 27 November 2017 the municipality invited the complainant to be heard on 12 December 2017, as the department [B.] had applied for the termination of the employment relationship. The complainant had her representative inform the municipality that, due to a high-risk pregnancy, she was not able to face the stress of a dispute. After the birth in February 2018, the municipality invited her on 28 March 2018 to a hearing on 11 April 2018. On 5 April 2018 the complainant declined, referring to her maternity leave. On 16 April 2018 the municipality set a deadline of 15 May 2018 for a written statement setting out the essential grounds for dismissal. The complainant took the view that she could not be required to make a statement during the protection period, and that a dismissal would in any event be abusive.

By decision of 31 May 2018 the Municipal Council terminated the employment relationship with effect from 30 September 2018 and released the complainant from duty with immediate effect. After she objected that the dismissal was void because of the protection period, the dismissal was pronounced anew by decision of 13 June 2018, with effect from 31 October 2018. The Government Council of the Canton of Zug dismissed the administrative appeal on 19 March 2019, insofar as it was admissible. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug dismissed the complaint by judgment of 17 December 2019. The complainant claimed compensation of seven monthly salaries (CHF 53,382) for abusive dismissal.

Before the Federal Supreme Court the complainant sought a finding that the dismissal was abusive and compensation, alternatively remittal. No exchange of written submissions took place.

The subject matter of the dispute was whether the Administrative Court violated federal law or constitutional rights by denying that the dismissal was abusive and, consequently, the claim to compensation.

Considerations

The public law appeal against the final cantonal decision in a public-law employment relationship is admissible. The threshold amount in dispute of CHF 15,000 is met; the exception under Art. 83 lit. g FSCA does not apply. The scope of review is limited: municipal law (the Personnel Regulations of the Municipality of Baar) is reviewed only for arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.), the establishment of facts only for manifest error (Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA), and for complaints of violation of fundamental rights a qualified duty to raise objections applies (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA). Arbitrariness exists only where both the reasoning and the result are untenable.

The complaint of violation of the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.) fails. The complainant knew of the allegations at the latest since the letter of 16 April 2018 and had been represented by counsel for months, so a deadline of just under one month for a written statement was not too short. In public service employment law, even relatively informal opportunities to comment before dismissal are sufficient.

Setting the deadline during maternity leave and the protection period does not violate any right either. The protection period of 16 weeks after confinement under Art. 12 PR concerns the dismissal itself; that the right to be heard under Art. 10 para. 2 PR does not fall within it is not arbitrary in terms of wording, purpose or meaning. Maternity protection under Art. 62 PR is not violated. The Labour Act (Art. 2 para. 1 lit. a and Art. 3a EmpA) is in principle not applicable to municipal administration; moreover, the employment ban under Art. 35a…