Littler Global Legal news 2026 (Quarter 2, 2026)
The Global Guide Quarterly (GGQ) is Littler’s quarterly newsletter offering updates on key labor and employment law developments across the Americas, APAC, and EMEA. Read the Danish news for the first quarter of 2026 below and find the full guide here: The Global Guide Quarterly.
Bankruptcy Termination of Pregnant Employee Upheld Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency
On March 26, 2026, the Western High Court ruled that the termination of a pregnant employee in connection with her employer’s bankruptcy did not violate the Danish Equal Treatment Act.
The court held that the assessment must be based on the circumstances existing at the time of termination with the key question being whether the termination was justified by the bankruptcy rather than the employee’s pregnancy or a potential business transfer.
The court emphasized that all employees were terminated simultaneously within the statutory deadline, that they were placed on unpaid leave due to a lack of funds, and that the business had ceased operations. At that time, negotiations on a possible transfer were not sufficiently advanced to ensure an agreement. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the termination was genuinely driven by the bankruptcy and not linked to pregnancy or a subsequent transfer, and therefore the employer was acquitted
Housing Allowance for Foreign Employees Upheld Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency
On May 6, 2026, the Danish Labor Court ruled that a collective bargaining provision requiring employers to pay a housing allowance to employees who were not resident in Denmark at the start of their employment or posting did not violate EU rules on nondiscrimination, free movement of workers, or the freedom to provide services. The challenge was brought by a Lithuanian construction company, which argued that the allowance disproportionately affected foreign employers because they are more likely to employ workers residing outside Denmark
The Labor Court ruled that eligibility for the allowance depends solely on an employee’s place of residence at the start of employment or posting, regardless of nationality or whether the employer is Danish or foreign. The court further found no evidence that the measure in practice affected foreign employers more adversely than Danish employers. The court also emphasized that the supplement was to be paid only to employees whose hourly wage did not exceed the minimum wage including the housing allowance. According to the statistical data presented, these employees belonged to the lowest-paid segment of the construction industry.
Handshake Requirement Found Discriminatory
On May 13, 2026, the Danish Supreme Court ruled that a student teacher had been subjected to indirect discrimination on grounds of religion after a public primary and lower secondary school terminated her teaching internship because, for religious reasons, she did not wish to shake hands with men.
The Court found that the municipality failed to demonstrate that the requirement was necessary because it had not sufficiently explored whether alternative and less restrictive forms of greeting could accommodate both the student teacher’s religious beliefs and the municipality’s equality objectives. However, no compensation was awarded, as the court considered that the student teacher could have contributed more to finding a solution and that the termination of the internship had limited practical consequences.
Danish Supreme Court Clarifies Employer Liability for Work-Related Injuries
On May 21, 2026, the Danish Supreme Court ruled that the Region of Southern Denmark was not liable for a social educator’s psychological injury, despite the employee developing PTSD after being exposed to violence and threats while working in a psychiatric department. The court confirmed that employer liability must be assessed under the general negligence rule, interpreted in light of the Working Environment Act’s requirement to ensure that work is planned and carried out in a fully safe and healthy manner, covering both physical and psychological conditions. The court ruled that when assessing liability, emphasis should be placed on the inherent risks of the work, the likelihood of psychological injury, and the preventive measures implemented by the employer.
The Supreme Court further emphasized that exposure to aggressive or threatening behavior may be an unavoidable feature of certain occupations and does not, by itself, establish that working conditions are unsafe. As the Region of Southern Denmark had implemented various workplace safety measures and there was no evidence that the work environment was generally unsafe, the Region had not acted negligently and was therefore not liable.
Loss-of-Earning-Capacity Claim Returned for Reconsideration
In a judgment of April 28, 2026, the Danish Supreme Court ruled that the National Social Appeals Board had applied an incorrect legal standard when rejecting an employee’s claim for compensation for loss of earning capacity under the Danish Workers’ Compensation Act. The case concerned a municipal employee who suffered a workplace injury in 2000 and was later granted a flex job due to reduced working capacity. The Supreme Court emphasized that compensation may be awarded where there is a clear and permanent loss of income of at least 5%, corresponding to a loss of earning capacity of 15%.
The Court further emphasized that an occupational injury does not need to be the sole cause of reduced working capacity, provided that it forms part of the overall causal chain. Because the Appeals Board had applied a stricter interpretation than that established in case law and failed to properly consider the role of the injury, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Appeals Board for a reassessment. The judgment confirms that even relatively limited but permanent losses may entitle claimants to compensation and is expected to affect future assessments of cases involving complex issues of causation.
Read the full guide, featuring employment law updates from 47 jurisdictions, including Austria, Brazil, China, Croatia, Finland, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, in the complete edition of The Global Guide Quarterly here: The Global Guide Quarterly.
Questions regarding the guide and the applicable legal framework may be directed to Attorney Bo Enevold Uhrenfeldt.
____________________________________
Bo Enevold Uhrenfeldt
Attorney & Partner
+45 44 14 30 90
