Reimbursement of training and education costs – Hamm Regional Labor Court sets new standards for employment contract drafting

If a clause triggers the reimbursement of training costs when the employment relationship is terminated “at the request” of the employee, this means the indiscriminate termination of the employment relationship by the employee giving notice. With this content, the clause is unreasonably disadvantageous within the meaning of Section 307 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), according to the Hamm Regional Labor Court (LAG) (June 13, 2025 – 1 SLa 21/25).

Facts

In the underlying case, a hospital operator had employed a former paramedic as an “employee in the medical service as a physician assistant.” The job title “physician assistant” describes a qualified healthcare profession that can be practiced after completing a university degree ending with a bachelor's degree. The professional is authorized to perform medical tasks within the scope of prior delegation.

The parties concluded a continuing education agreement for the part-time Bachelor Physician Assistance (B.Sc.) program, which regulated the assumption of costs and repayment obligations. According to this agreement, the training costs were to be repaid on a pro rata basis if the employment relationship ended “at the request” of the employee or for a “reason for which he was responsible” within 36 months of graduation, with the repayment amount being reduced by 1/36 for each full month of employment after completion of the training.

After successfully completing his further training, the employee terminated his employment relationship before the end of this period. The employer then demanded repayment of the costs it had covered – not only for tuition and examination fees, but also for the remuneration paid during internships accompanying his studies, based on the individually concluded further training agreement and, alternatively, on Section 10a of the AVR-Caritas. The labor court partially upheld the claim, but the Hamm Regional Labor Court has now dismissed it in its entirety.

Reasons for the decision

The court did not accept the employee's argument that he had not left of his own accord. An employee who announces his resignation due to alleged overload, but expressly makes it dependent on better classification or remuneration in negotiations, cannot subsequently claim that his resignation was necessitated by unreasonable circumstances. In this case, the reason was demonstrably the employer's failure to meet the employee's demands regarding remuneration, not objectively unreasonable working conditions.

However, the Hamm Regional Labor Court ruled that repayment clauses in continuing education agreements that are linked to any resignation by the employee are contrary to the requirements of transparency and appropriateness (Section 307 (1) sentence 1 BGB) and are therefore invalid. The term “upon request” is legally imprecise and disadvantages the employee because it does not provide for any exceptions, for example in cases of illness through no fault of the employee or unreasonable working conditions. The court's review means that this contractual clause is invalidated without replacement, i.e., it cannot be reduced to a permissible extent.

In addition, the court also rejected any claim under Section 10a AVR-Caritas. The parties had created a differentiated and deviating system within the framework of the individually concluded further training agreement, which was intended to deliberately replace the general provisions of AVR-Caritas. Even after applying the blue pencil test and supplementary contract interpretation, recourse to AVR was not possible.

Finally, the court confirmed that a claim for reimbursement of remuneration paid during internships is not possible as long as the employee has actually performed the tasks owed to him under his employment contract.

Practical considerations

Once again, this decision highlights the high requirements for an effective repayment clause in continuing education and training contracts. It must be carefully drafted, differentiated, and legally clear. Blanket or vague wording that requires repayment for any voluntary resignation is prone to error and, according to current case law, is usually invalid. In particular, the reasons for termination – such as illness, unreasonableness, or fault on the part of the employer – should be clearly excluded. Even the application of collective bargaining agreements or church regulations (such as AVR-Caritas) does not provide a safety net if an individually deviating regime has been agreed upon. Employers also cannot reserve the right to reclaim remuneration paid for work actually performed.

The ruling is not yet final; an appeal to the Federal Labor Court has been granted and is pending under 9 AZR 133/25.