A prison officer begins an affair with a prisoner while she is still on probation and is subsequently released. The Berlin administrative court is now rejecting a complaint by the woman against her expulsion. She did not follow the safety regulations.
A prison officer started a secret love affair with a prisoner and accommodated him in her apartment after his release – and was rightly released for it: This was decided by the Berlin administrative court. It thus rejected a lawsuit by the woman against her dismissal. The verdict is not yet legally binding. (VG 5 K 163/20).
According to the court, the plaintiff worked as a probationary officer in a prison. During this time she had entered into a relationship with an inmate, which she had kept secret from her employer. She later took the man into her apartment after his release. When the employer found out about this, he fired the employee. The woman took legal action against it. According to the court, she argued that she was technically well suited to the job. In addition, misconduct of this kind can be ruled out in the future. Instead of dismissal, the employer could have extended the probationary period or transferred the officer to a less security-relevant area.
However, the court did not follow this argument: probationary civil servants could be dismissed if they did not prove themselves during the probationary period – in terms of their suitability, qualifications and performance. As a civil servant, the plaintiff had to follow the security regulations – and these said that she had to exercise the necessary restraint towards prisoners and those released.
The court found that the woman made mistakes in dealing with the love affair. Because if a relationship with a convict gives reason to doubt the officer’s proper performance of her duties, she must report the relationship to the prison management. A love affair between a prison officer and a convict could also damage the reputation of the employer and the profession of prison officer.
In addition, the court found that the plaintiff had permanently disturbed the relationship of trust with her employer. He should therefore not have chosen a milder means than dismissal.
(This article was first published on Wednesday, October 26, 2022.)