AGG Complaints Office: Internal or External Compared

The General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz - AGG) obliges every employer in Germany to establish an internal AGG Complaints Office (Beschwerdestelle). Under § 13(1) AGG, employees have the right to lodge a complaint with the competent department in the firm, company, or authority if they feel discriminated against in connection with their employment relationship by their employer, a superior, another employee, or a third party on any of the grounds referred to in § 1 AGG^[1]. This duty applies without exception from the very first employee. Unlike thresholds under other compliance laws, the AGG contains no minimum company size requirement. Regulatory authorities and occupational health and safety bodies inspect upon occasion whether the complaints office is organizationally embedded and properly communicated within the company.

In daily operational practice, confusion frequently arises between the AGG Complaints Office and the internal whistleblower reporting channel under the Whistleblower Protection Act (Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz - HinSchG). While the HinSchG regulates reports concerning criminal offenses, administrative fine provisions, and systematic legal violations, § 13 AGG focuses specifically on procedural protection against discrimination, sexual harassment, and racial disadvantage in the workplace. The two functions therefore pursue distinct protective purposes. § 13(1) AGG also states that the complaint must be examined and the complainant informed of the result of that examination^[1].

• Legal anchoring: § 13(1) AGG grants every employee a right to complain to the competent department in the firm, company, or authority, and the provision sets no headcount threshold^[1].
• Transparency mandate: Pursuant to § 12(5) AGG, the details of the complaints office must be made known within the workplace (e.g., via notice board posting or intranet entry).
• Duty to investigate and notify: Incoming complaints must be investigated without delay, and the outcome must be communicated to the complaining employee.
• Functional separation: Separation of AGG procedures from HinSchG reporting channels to prevent overlaps in jurisdiction and responsibility.

The organizational setup affords the employer formal leeway. The AGG names no specific staffing model, so the complaints office can be filled internally with the company's own employees or outsourced to an external service provider. The sole governing criterion is that the obligation to conduct an objective and thorough investigation in the event of a dispute is satisfied in full.

In practice, internal staffing of the AGG Complaints Office (Beschwerdestelle) is often assigned to the Human Resources department, the legal department, or the works council. However, this seemingly pragmatic choice quickly leads to significant conflicts of interest in operational reality. HR employees primarily represent management interests, which creates bias or the perception of bias among affected workers when complaints are filed against executives. That is a problem, because the complaint still has to be examined and the complainant informed of the result^[1].

Furthermore, the proper management of an AGG procedure requires deep legal expertise. The designated individuals must evaluate evidence, record witness statements in a legally sound manner, and prepare proportionate employment law measures pursuant to § 12(4) AGG. Without ongoing training, formal errors of discretion threaten to establish valid compensation claims by aggrieved parties.

Under § 130 OWiG, the owner of a business acts unlawfully if they intentionally or negligently omit the supervisory measures needed to prevent breaches of duties incumbent on the business, and the necessary measures expressly include appointing, carefully selecting, and monitoring supervisory personnel^[2]. If the internal complaints office lacks the necessary independence or documentation discipline, management carries that supervisory risk for inadequately investigated discrimination cases.

Outsourcing the AGG Complaints Office (Beschwerdestelle) to a specialized external service provider resolves the fundamental tension between the employer role and objective investigation. Outsourcing establishes the necessary legal distance and signals genuine independence to the workforce. Because complaining employees do not have to speak with supervisors or their own HR team, concerns regarding influence by internal hierarchies are eliminated.

By appointing legally trained specialists, every case is handled in a procedurally secure manner from minute one. The external service provider takes over initial screening, conducts structured interviews, and formulates reasoned recommendations for action to the employer. Internal staffing effort for case handling is largely eliminated.

An external compliance officer or external complaints office covers the statutory duty to examine complaints with qualified, independent staff. Responsibility for the final employment measure remains with the employer, but the decision rests on a documented, court-proof foundation.

An economic comparison between internal and external solutions often falls short when direct consultancy fees are weighed solely against internal payroll costs. An internal solution incurs substantial hidden costs. These include not only the working hours required for initial setup, but also ongoing work absences for training, procedure development, and administrative effort for every single complaint case.

In an external operating model, transparent fixed costs are set against clear Service Level Agreements. The company pays a predictable monthly base fee for maintaining the office and guaranteeing statutory availability. When a complaint arises, processing occurs according to pre-defined rate structures.

Another major risk factor for internal solutions is staff turnover. When trained personnel leave the company, acquired expertise is lost, and the training cycle starts again. Outsourcing eliminates this personnel risk entirely.

Underestimating statutory organizational duties carries direct financial and legal risks for companies and executive bodies. Under § 15(1) AGG, an employer who violates the prohibition of discrimination is obliged to compensate the damage arising from it, unless the employer is not responsible for the breach of duty^[3]. A complaints office that does not exist, or that never investigates the complaints it receives, removes exactly the evidence an employer needs to show it was not responsible.

In addition, § 15(2) AGG grants employees affected by discrimination a claim for appropriate monetary compensation for non-material damage. Although such claims must be asserted in writing within two months pursuant to § 15(4) AGG, inadequate internal complaint procedures regularly trigger protracted and costly labor court litigation.

• Compensation under § 15(2) AGG: Where the damage is non-material, the employee may demand appropriate compensation in money; in the case of non-recruitment this compensation may not exceed three monthly salaries if the applicant would not have been recruited even in a discrimination-free selection^[3].
• HinSchG administrative fines, two different ceilings: § 40(6) HinSchG caps the fine at 20,000 euros for failing to set up and operate a mandatory internal reporting channel (§ 40(2) No. 2), and at 50,000 euros for the more serious offences of obstructing a report or taking retaliatory measures (§ 40(2) Nos. 1 and 3) and for breaching confidentiality^[4].
• Supervisory duties under § 130 OWiG: Fines against business owners for intentional or negligent failure to take the required supervisory measures, including the appointment, careful selection, and monitoring of supervisory personnel^[2].

To establish a complaints office that stands up in court, management must ensure that procedural errors are systematically excluded. Faulty case processing damages workforce trust and provides plaintiffs with decisive arguments in labor court proceedings.

Determining whether an internal or external AGG Complaints Office (Beschwerdestelle) fits best depends heavily on company size, organizational structure, and internal resource availability. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with up to 50 employees rarely possess dedicated legal or compliance departments. In these organizations, assigning complaint handling internally almost inevitably creates severe personal conflicts of interest, as HR generalists work directly alongside affected managers.

For mid-market companies with 50 to 250 employees, the legal requirements under the Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) apply alongside § 13 AGG. Combining these channels internally without proper functional separation often leads to procedural errors and confidentiality breaches. An external solution or hybrid model ensures strict compliance with both legal frameworks while relieving internal personnel from complex legal investigations.

Regardless of headcount, the deciding factor remains whether the organization can demonstrate a complete, unmanipulable chain of evidence when an auditor or labor court requests proof of compliant procedure.

Meeting statutory obligations under § 13 AGG and related compliance regulations does not require building costly internal bureaucracy, nor does it remove the owner's supervisory duties under § 130 OWiG, which include the appointment, careful selection, and monitoring of supervisory personnel^[2]. Combining compliance software with officer-as-a-service keeps every mandatory role continuously audit-proof.

Companies choose between two flexible models on the same unified platform:

Whether you run internal compliance or outsource your AGG Complaints Office, CIVAC provides a seamless chain of custody. We handle compliance so you can focus on running your business.

No, unlike other compliance laws, the General Act on Equal Treatment (AGG) mandates a complaints office for every employer in Germany, starting from the very first employee.

The HinSchG channel handles reports on criminal offenses and systemic legal violations, whereas the AGG complaints office specifically focuses on procedural protection against discrimination, sexual harassment, and racist disadvantage in the workplace.

While HR is often assigned this role, it creates significant conflicts of interest. HR primarily represents management, which can lead to bias or the perception of bias, deterring employees from reporting.

Beyond initial setup, hidden costs include ongoing working hours lost to mandatory legal training, creating process workflows, and the significant administrative effort required for investigating each individual complaint.

Failing to set up a required internal reporting channel under the HinSchG can result in fines of up to 20,000 EUR, while hindering reports or breaching confidentiality can lead to fines up to 50,000 EUR.

Employees affected by discrimination must assert their claims for damages and financial compensation for immaterial damages in writing within a two-month period under § 15 AGG.