Animals at the workplace – employee entitlement based on long-standing tacit approval?

Facts of the Case

The employee had been working as a supervisor in an employer's gambling hall since 2013. According to the contractually agreed job description, animals were not allowed to bring to work. Since 2019, and especially after the end of the coronavirus lockdown, the employee had been bringing her dog to work regularly. During working hours, the dog was not tied up and was able to move freely around the site. For years, successive managers did not raise any objections. In a letter in 2025, the employer requested the employee to refrain from bringing her dog to work in future. This was due to numerous complaints from colleagues and customers. The employee sought a preliminary injunction to force the company to tolerate her bringing her dog to work until a decision was made in the first instance. The employee essentially argued that this was a matter of established company practice. The employer pointed to a prohibition in the employment contract that could not be waived either explicitly or by tacit behaviour.

The decision

The Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court ruled that the claim was doubtful in view of the provisions of the employment contract. Furthermore, the fact that managers tolerated the dog being brought to work was irrelevant, as they were not authorised to amend the employment contract or lift the general ban. The mere failure to enforce the ban – especially with changing managers – did not automatically lead to its lifting. Furthermore, this was not sufficient to establish a "company practice". For this legal concept developed by case law, it would be necessary for numerous employees to bring animals to work. There were therefore many reasons why the employer was entitled to enforce the ban, as customers who might be allergic to animal hair or afraid of dogs would not visit the gambling hall at all.

Furthermore, the employee had not sufficiently explained why other people close to her could not look after the dog during her working hours and why it was not possible to arrange commercial care for the dog. The argument of limited financial resources was also unconvincing, as no unreasonable financial burden was apparent. It was up to the employee to find a solution and not up to the employer to make contractual changes.

However, in order to continue the employment relationship and allow the dog to get used to the changing circumstances, the parties agreed on a settlement. The dog was allowed to continue to be brought to work until an agreed date, after which  the express permission of the management would be required.

Consequences for practice

The decision to grant or deny permission to bring animals to the workplace is the responsibility of employers, unless prohibitions already exist due to safety or hygiene regulations. This applies even if companies have not previously sanctioned such behaviour. The decision on this matter fundamentally concerns the so-called managerial authority, according to which employers can determine the content, location and time of work at their reasonable discretion. This also applies to the conduct and behaviour of employees, in particular the bringing of animals to the workplace. The right to issue instructions is not restricted by the fact that a ban has not been enforced in the past. The Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court had already ruled on a similar case involving the bringing of a dog to work and prohibited it. There is no general legal right to bring animals to the workplace.

Practical tip

It is advisable for employers to take a clear position on bringing animals to work, for example directly in the employment contract (as a general prohibition or with reservation of permission) or as part of a works agreement, if there is a works council. This is also to be prepared in the event of dismissal. Employees who bring an animal to work without permission, contrary to an instruction or a works agreement, are in breach of their duties, which can be sanctioned with a warning or, in the case of persistent repetition, with dismissal for conduct-related reasons.