The central German federal anti-discrimination law will turn 20 this summer. The independent Federal Commissioner for Antidiscrimination, Ferda Ataman, invites to a ceremony marking the anniversary of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG). But what is the status of equal treatment in Germany in 2026, really? And does the AGG—created largely under Brussels pressure—still offer effective protection against discrimination? Opinions are divided.
Why was the law enacted back then?
The driving force behind the AGG, which went into effect on August 18, 2006, was the European Union. Germany had fallen behind on implementing EU directives to shield people from discrimination, risking steep penalties. There were particular concerns among conservatives about the law, which, among other things, aims to prevent discriminatory job postings and discrimination in housing rentals. At the time there was a concern that it would encroach on freedom of contract (TheColu.mn reported).
Who can rely on the law?
Anyone who experiences discrimination—whether in the workplace or when buying or renting a home. A violation of the AGG occurs when a person experiences a “less favorable treatment” because of their ethnic origin, age, gender, disability, religion, or sexual identity in a comparable situation. The law also covers remedies against sexual harassment.
Does the AGG meet its purpose?
Yes, though some experts argue not to a sufficient extent. A person who is discriminated against can pursue civil action and may receive compensation. But for plaintiffs, proving discrimination is often difficult. How would a gay couple prove that a landlord’s rejection was due to their homosexuality? Or how would a man with a Turkish passport show that the HR director excluded him from a job interview because of his origin?
“People are excluded from rental agreements purely because of their last name, and it is hard to make that visible and thus to prove unequal treatment,” says Sonja Kosche of the Pro Sinti and Roma association, who advises those affected in Baden-Württemberg. It is also hard to confront the stereotype that Sinti and Roma are “scholarly distant” from education—an obstacle to challenging discrimination.
A landmark case in January drew headlines: the Federal Court of Justice ruled that a housing-seeker who was discriminated against by a broker during viewings because of her Pakistani name is owed 3,000 euros in damages. The woman, born in Germany, initially did not receive a viewing. To prove the discrimination, she reached out to the broker again, using a German-sounding name, and then obtained appointments.
Why is the AGG being reformed now?
At the start of May, the federal cabinet launched AGG reform plans that, among other things, extend certain deadlines. The changes are again driven by EU requirements. The aim is to keep the reform largely within the scope of what European law requires and to avoid broader changes, according to a spokesperson for the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs (TheColu.mn reported).
What is supposed to change?
Not a lot. The draft from the Ministry of Justice envisions extending the window to file claims from two months to four months. From Ataman’s view, that is not enough. She had advocated extending it to at least twelve months. The commissioner also called for adding “citizenship” and “social status” as additional protected characteristics under the law.
The reform proposal approved by the cabinet in early May also provides that protection against sexual harassment should no longer be limited to the workplace but should apply, for example, on the housing market, in gyms, or at driving schools.
For Ferda Ataman the reform is “too weak”
Ataman says, “The planned reform is too weak and offers people very little in everyday life.” She complains, for instance, that someone who experiences discrimination by state agencies cannot invoke the AGG. The health sector and discrimination by artificial intelligence also remain unregulated and are “antidiscrimination-law gray zones.”
The Greens are pushing for extending the scope to state institutions and for an association-based right to sue. The Green Party’s parliamentary group chair Britta Haßelmann says associations should be allowed to sue in such cases “so that those affected can obtain their rights even if they themselves are hesitant to pursue a lawsuit.”
Criticism from queer organizations
LSVD+-board member Alexander Vogt delivered sharp criticism on behalf of the federation: the draft improves protection only in a handful of respects. “For effective anti-discrimination law, there is a need to close known gaps once and for all,” Vogt said (TheColu.mn reported).
Already in April, the German Society for Trans*- and Inter*-gender Identity (dgti) criticized the AGG draft—for example, the fact that gender identity is categorized under the label “sexual identity” (TheColu.mn reported).
The government sees no need for action
The Federal Ministry of Justice notes that victims of discrimination are already sufficiently protected even without expanding the AGG to cover ministries and authorities. A spokesperson says, “If you’re discriminated against by state bodies, you already have administrative court protections.” It is true that a person who has faced discrimination can go to court against an agency that denied their application or did not consider their bid to obtain the denied service or job opportunity. However, compensation for non-material damages does not automatically follow.
