The General Act on Equal Treatment (AGG) contains no sentence that orders training. It builds up the obligation in two steps. Section 12 (1) AGG obliges the employer to take the necessary measures to protect against discrimination on one of the grounds listed in Section 1 — expressly including preventive measures. Subsection 2 sentence 1 specifies this as a should provision: the employer should, in a suitable manner, in particular in the context of vocational training and continuing professional development, point out that such discrimination is impermissible and work toward ensuring that it does not occur.
The sentence that is decisive in practice is the next one. Subsection 2 sentence 2 reads: "If the employer has trained its employees in a suitable manner for the purpose of preventing discrimination, this is deemed to fulfill its obligations under subsection 1." A should thus becomes an offer: whoever trains receives a statutory fiction of compliance.
Limit: A should provision is not a recommendation. As a rule, it is binding and permits deviations only in atypical situations. Anyone who does not train at all must demonstrate the fulfillment of their protection obligation in another way — and does not have the fiction of sentence 2 on their side.
The reference in sentence 2 relates exclusively to subsection 1. Everything the Act requires elsewhere remains in place. Specifically:
Limit: Nor does the fiction protect against one's own conduct. Section 15 (1) AGG only exonerates the employer if it is not responsible for the breach of duty; according to its wording, the claim for compensation under subsection 2 is not tied to fault. Anyone who trains and then leaves a reported case of discrimination unaddressed does not improve their position through the training.
This is where the honest part begins. The standard is not defined by law, and for this article no ruling by a highest federal court could be identified that specifies when training triggers the fiction of subsection 2 sentence 2. Anyone who presents a minimum duration, a mandatory format, or a binding cycle as applicable law overstates the legal situation.
What can be derived from the purpose of the provision, on the other hand, is what the content must be oriented toward. The training should point out that discrimination is impermissible and work toward ensuring that it does not occur. This results in a content framework:
Limit: Training that merely recites the statutory text hardly fulfills the purpose of working toward prevention. Conversely, practical case work close to the company is no license to assess specific individual cases legally — that is the responsibility of the complaints office and, in case of doubt, of a legal review.
The AGG has no small-business clause. Section 12 is addressed to the employer, without a minimum number of employees; unlike in protection against dismissal, there is no threshold here above which the obligations only begin to apply. Section 24 AGG extends the provisions accordingly, taking into account their special legal status, to civil servants, judges, persons performing civilian service, and recognized conscientious objectors insofar as their call-up for civilian service is concerned — the obligations in public administration therefore essentially correspond to those in the private sector.
A cycle is not set out in the Act. In practice, what holds up is initial training during onboarding plus a refresher at a fixed interval, because the fiction of subsection 2 sentence 2 is tied to the current group of employees: anyone hired after the last training session has not been trained. The Act says nothing on the question of format; the trade-off between a digital and a classroom-based approach is described in E-learning versus classroom training for compliance, and the embedding in an overall effect in Compliance awareness.
Limit: Statements such as "mandatory annually" cannot be substantiated for the AGG. A fixed interval is an organizational decision that you should be able to justify, not a statutory requirement.
Section 12 (5) AGG requires that the Act itself, Section 61b ArbGG, and information about the offices responsible for complaints under Section 13 be made known in the establishment or in the public-sector office. That is more than Section 12 alone — it is the statutory text that must be made known.
The form is open: posting a notice, making it available for inspection at a suitable place, or using the information and communication technology customary in the establishment. A well-maintained intranet area is therefore permissible in principle; the word intranet, however, does not appear in the Act but follows from the opening for technology customary in the establishment. The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency also lists posting, making available for inspection, and providing on the intranet side by side.
Limit: "Customary in the establishment" presupposes that all employees actually reach the channel. In establishments with employees who do not have regular screen access, a pure intranet solution does not readily meet this requirement.
Section 13 (1) AGG gives employees the right to complain to the competent offices of the establishment, the company, or the public-sector office if they feel discriminated against in connection with their employment on one of the grounds listed in Section 1 AGG — by the employer, by supervisors, by other employees, or by third parties. The complaint must be examined, and the outcome must be communicated to the person who lodged the complaint. The rights of employee representative bodies remain unaffected alongside this.
For training practice, more follows from this than is visible at first glance. A complaints office that has been set up but is not known does not fulfill its purpose — and that is precisely why Section 12 (5) AGG expressly requires information about the competent offices as part of the publication. Training is the most practical place for this information to reach people: name, contact details, procedure, handling of confidentiality.
Two points are regularly treated too briefly. First, the role of managers: the duty to respond under Section 12 (3) AGG lands with them, and they are often the first point of contact someone turns to — even without a formal complaint. Anyone who has been trained knows that such a report must not be left lying. Second, the documentation of the process: because Section 22 AGG shifts the burden of proof, traceable handling of the complaint is itself an essential part of the defense position.
Limit: The AGG prescribes neither a specific organizational form for the complaints office nor a procedure. Whether a particular arrangement is considered sufficient in a dispute is a question of the individual case and not one that can be derived from the statutory wording.
Section 22 AGG shifts the burden of proof: if one party proves circumstantial evidence that suggests discrimination on one of the grounds listed in Section 1, the other party bears the burden of proving that there was no violation. For training, this has a simple consequence: the fiction under Section 12 (2) sentence 2 does not take effect automatically, but only if the training can be proven by person, time, and content. The information such proof must contain is compiled in Proving mandatory training.
A short deadline applies to claims: Section 15 (4) AGG requires claims to be asserted in writing within two months, subject to deviating provisions in collective agreements. In the case of an application or a professional promotion, the period begins with receipt of the rejection, otherwise with knowledge of the discrimination.
Limit: The AGG contains no fine provision for violations of Section 12. The risk lies not in an official sanction but in compensation and damages under Section 15 AGG and in the evidentiary position under Section 22 AGG. How this plays out in an individual case is a question of the specific circumstances and not one that can be answered in general terms.
Since spring 2026, a legislative procedure to amend the AGG has been underway. The draft of a Second Act Amending the General Act on Equal Treatment is available as Bundestag printed paper 21/6178 of June 1, 2026; the first reading took place on June 11, 2026, and the opinion of the Bundesrat with the counterstatement of the Federal Government is dated June 24, 2026. Up to issue no. 231 of August 5, 2026, no act amending the AGG had been promulgated in the Federal Law Gazette Part I; the entry into force on June 19, 2026, provided for in the draft has therefore become moot. Moreover, the draft provides for a staggered entry into force, so that even after promulgation not all changes would take effect on the same day.
For training practice, the most important information is a non-change: Sections 12, 13, and 22 AGG are not affected by the draft. The obligations described above therefore remain in place even if the Act is passed in the draft version. Among other things, it is planned to extend the deadline for asserting claims under Section 15 (4) AGG from two to four months.
Limit: Until promulgation, the two-month deadline applies. As long as the procedure is ongoing, the final text may differ from the draft version — the Bundesrat has raised additional topics, including algorithmic discrimination. Anyone creating training materials today should make the date of the legal status visible.
Section 12 (2) sentence 1 AGG is worded as a should provision, not as an express order. A should provision, however, is binding as a rule and permits deviations only in atypical situations. Whoever trains additionally triggers the fiction of compliance under sentence 2; whoever does not train must demonstrate the fulfillment of the protection obligation under subsection 1 in another way and, in a dispute, starts from the weaker position.
It provides that training carried out in a suitable manner for the purpose of preventing discrimination is deemed to fulfill the obligations under subsection 1. The reference expressly relates only to subsection 1. The duty to respond to violations by employees, protection against discrimination by third parties, the duty of publication, and the handling of complaints under Section 13 AGG remain entirely unaffected by it.
There is no statutory cycle; the AGG specifies neither an interval nor a minimum duration. Since the fiction of subsection 2 sentence 2 is tied to the group of people currently employed, in practice you need initial training during onboarding and a refresher at a self-determined interval that you can justify. Organizational changes or an incident in the company can also be occasions.
Yes. The AGG contains no small-business clause; Section 12 is addressed to the employer without a threshold, and the concept of employee in Section 6 AGG also has no minimum size. The company-size threshold known from dismissal protection law only has an effect there and indirectly via Section 2 (4) AGG, not on the obligations under Sections 12 and 13 AGG.
The provision permits posting, making available for inspection, or the use of the information and communication technology customary in the establishment; an intranet is therefore permissible in principle. The prerequisite is that all employees actually reach this channel. What must be made known is the Act, Section 61b ArbGG, and the information about the complaints office.
Not according to the draft. Bundestag printed paper 21/6178 leaves Sections 12, 13, and 22 AGG unchanged. Among other things, an extension of the deadline for asserting claims under Section 15 (4) AGG from two to four months is planned. As of the editorial date, no promulgation could be established.
All sources retrieved on 6 Aug 2026 unless otherwise stated in the entry. For provisions on gesetze-im-internet.de, the legal status of 6 Aug 2026 applies; retrieval there was not technically possible.
Insights into the future of digital learning, with a focus on AI, compliance, and modern training solutions. Discover the latest posts and articles to gain practical insights into legally compliant, efficient, and automated corporate training.
Bridgly is the European training partner for audit-proof, tailored, and automated training and professional development.
We support the IHK initiative "Pack ma's digital" to help businesses in Upper Bavaria with digitalisation and secure the future of the region.Note: Some text, images, and videos on this website were generated using artificial intelligence.
All content is for informational purposes and has been carefully reviewed from a journalistic perspective, but does not claim to be exhaustive or legally binding.
