June is Pride Month: a month to raise awareness of the rights and discrimination of queer people. Numerous companies use these four weeks to raise a rainbow flag in front of their company headquarters and/or to raise awareness of prejudice, discrimination against queer employees and human rights with campaigns. This year, too, the actions are faced with a still-present diversity backlash in the USA, right-wing radical movements in Germany and the economic crisis. These developments influence the extent to which companies support the rights of queer people. This is currently happening in an ambivalent way.
“On the one hand, we see companies that are now publicly positioning themselves in favor of human rights, diversity and equality,” says Kai Bölle, board spokesman for CSD Germany. CSD Germany is the association that organizes the demonstrations and celebrations surrounding Christopher Street Day – the days of action for queer people – in the Federal Republic. This clear public positioning can arise from ethical motives. According to Bölle, it could also have economic intentions. “More and more companies in Germany are recognizing that the division into valuable and worthless people, propagated primarily by the AfD, will dramatically damage Germany as a business location, and are committed to democratic values and diversity in society,” says the CSD spokesman.
But there is also a countermovement: Some companies are still committed, but are doing so less publicly than around two years ago. According to Bölle, these are particularly companies with business areas that operate in the USA.
Less and less diversity marketing
Pavlo Stroblja also observed this. As the founder and CEO of Queermentor, a mentor network for LGBTQIA+ people and a diversity consultancy, he gets daily insights into how queer people are treated in Germany’s companies. He is currently also seeing some effects of the economic crisis. “In times of crisis, topics such as inclusion are often treated as ‘optional’ – although that is precisely when belonging and fair and inclusive work cultures are important,” says Stroblja. At the same time, he has noticed a positive trend due to the current framework conditions: “We see a shift from symbolic visibility to the question: How resilient is the commitment really when it becomes uncomfortable?” The difference between real attitude and diversity marketing is currently becoming very clear.
And this isn’t just about visibility. In addition to the rainbow campaigns, according to Stroblja, there also need to be structural changes in companies. And many still have some catching up to do here. If employers are committed to queer people, they are currently doing so primarily through employee-led networks, participation in the CSD, pride campaigns and the company’s public positioning on Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI).
In addition, strategies, clear responsibilities and measurable goals are needed. Stroblja cites binding anti-discrimination processes and training for managers as examples. In addition, the inclusion of queer people must be taken into account in all processes in the company and should not depend on individual committed people or on Pride Month. Allyship – i.e. non-queer people standing up for queer people when they are discriminated against – should be encouraged.
Kai Bölle also wants more commitment. The unconscious bias should be “systematically addressed within the company” and employers should generally work more on employees’ ability to work in a team. In addition, there should be mandatory training for employees instead of voluntary diversity training.
Law rarely provides answers to queer issues
The discourse surrounding equal rights for queer people is not ebbing away, but rather seems to be led by more divergent camps. Normally the law can give employers a little more guidance here, but this still seems to be far behind social developments. In the past two years, as far as can be seen, there has been no groundbreaking new case law and no fundamental reversal in labor law. According to Marijke van der Most, partner at Addleshaw Goddard, the few decisions on this matter were of little use for the legal classification of queer issues in the world of work.
An example: It was discussed in court whether an employer could fire an employee because she refused to translate instructions into gender-appropriate language (LAG Hamburg, February 5, 2026, ref. 1 SLa 18/25 and 1 SLa 19/25). The verdict: She could not therefore be terminated. And the reason for this ignores the question that would be exciting for queer inclusion: the translation was not part of her area of responsibility, which is why she could not be fired for it.
According to the reporting alone, the LAG Hamburg assumes that employers can generally specify gender-appropriate language in company communication on the basis of their right to issue instructions in accordance with Section 106 GewO. “But there is no judgment on that,” says van der Most. Whether such a requirement is effective in individual cases depends on a reasonable consideration – in particular on the legitimate operational interests, the rights and interests of the employees and the proportionality of the requirement.
The binary system continues to prevail in the law
Another problem: “Many labor law regulations are still based on a binary understanding of gender,” says the labor lawyer. This applies, for example, to the requirements regarding minority gender in works council elections or to regulations on pay transparency. What applies to other genders is not always clear from a legal perspective.
On the other hand, there is a little more legal guidance for two questions. In general, according to the General Equal Rights Act (AGG), no one may be discriminated against at work or in the application process because of gender or sexual identity. This means, firstly, that the job advertisement must be gender-neutral and – if it is not – can be an indication of discrimination. The employer must then demonstrate that the rejection was not based on gender or sexual identity.
What to do in the event of discrimination against queer people
Secondly, when it comes to the inclusion of queer people, it is legally clear: employees have a legal right to complain if they feel disadvantaged in connection with their employment relationship because of their gender or sexual identity. The company must appoint a responsible complaints office for this purpose. The person concerned can contact them, but they can also go to a person they trust in the organization.
The employer must then investigate the complaint and check whether there is discrimination within the meaning of the AGG. To do this, he must clarify the matter appropriately, i.e., depending on the case, in particular speak to everyone involved and document everything he learns in these discussions as precisely as possible. However, it should also be noted that personal rights are protected and the information is treated confidentially. Then it comes to the test: Does the situation meet the requirements for discrimination under the AGG or not? Unfortunately, after this clear process, you often find yourself in the legal gray area again. “It often turns out that employers cannot clearly explain the situation,” says van der Most.
In the event of discrimination, the company must then take action to protect the person affected and prevent further discrimination – for example through awareness training or separation of the employees involved. However, in serious cases, a warning or termination can also follow, says van der Most.
For the labor lawyer, the current legal situation is somewhat frustrating. “I wish there was more case law on this,” says van der Most. Companies have long had to make practical decisions without there being a solid line of action from the labor courts. “Awareness has changed, but it is a learning process for all of us.” Company practice is therefore a step ahead of case law: employers have to find answers today that courts will often only review later.
Lena Onderka is editorially responsible for the Employee Experience & Retention area – which also includes, for example, the topics of BGM and employee surveys. She also looks after the topic of diversity. She is also the editorial contact for the German Human Resources Summit and the HR Forum Banking.
