German Court Rules Against Saying ‘Digital Native’ in Job Postings

Following a recent ruling, employers in Germany who are specifically looking for a “digital native” in a job advertisement face the risk of discriminating against older applicants and violating the prohibition of discrimination under the country’s General Equal Treatment Act (AGG).

Facts of the Case

A lawsuit brought before the Heilbronn Labor Court has raised the issue of whether the phrase “digital native” is discriminatory. The parties were in dispute as to whether the employer — a sporting goods retailer — was obliged to pay compensation to the plaintiff due to a breach of the prohibition of discrimination under the AGG.  

At the heart of the dispute was a 2023 job advertisement for the position of “Manager Corporate Communication.” The following wording had been listed: “As a digital native, you feel at home in the world of social media, data-driven PR, moving images and all common programs for DTP [desktop publishing], CMS [content management systems], design and editorial work.” The tone was also relaxed; the employer was looking for a “team buddy” within a “dynamic team.”  

The plaintiff, born in 1972, applied for the advertised position and received a rejection. He then filed a lawsuit at the Heilbronn Labor Court for compensation due to age discrimination in the amount of five months’ gross salary. In his opinion, the term “digital native” indicated that the defendant was looking for an applicant who came from a generation that uses the digital language of computers, video games, and the internet. In terms of age, this would appear to address applicants born only after 1980.

The Decision

At first instance, the Heilbronn Labor Court granted the plaintiff a claim for compensation in the amount of 1.5 gross monthly salaries pursuant to Section 15 (2) AGG. This was not part of the salary claimed by the plaintiff, but part of the salary planned by the employer for the position advertised. 

According to the labor court, a “digital native” is a person who has grown up with digital technologies and is practiced in their use. The job advertisement had narrowed down the group of applicants, which meant that age discrimination against the plaintiff could be assumed. The employer failed to provide evidence to the contrary.  

The term “digital native” was directly linked to the applicant’s age, having been defined by American author Marc Prensky in 2001 to describe a generation that has grown up with digital technologies such as computers, the internet, and mobile devices. Consequently, the plaintiff, who was born in 1972, was, by definition, not a “digital native.” The direct reference to age or a younger generation was strengthened further by phrases such as “team buddy” and “dynamic team.” These suggested, from the perspective of an objective reader, that the job advertisement was aimed at younger applicants.

Consequences for Practice

The ruling makes it clear that employers must pay close attention to the requirements of the AGG when formulating job advertisements. Designations such as “digital native” can constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of age within the meaning of Section 1 AGG, as they are often associated with younger generations. Such discrimination can lead to considerable claims for compensation. To prevent legal risks, job advertisements should be neutral and nondiscriminatory. Age-related or otherwise exclusionary terms should be avoided in order to ensure equal opportunities for all applicants.

Practical Tip

Against this background, employers should pay attention to two things. Firstly, care should be taken to ensure that the job advertisement is worded in accordance with the AGG. Generation-related terms such as “digital native,” “Millennials,” or “Generation Z” should be avoided, and in case of doubt, it is better to fall back on required knowledge and skills. In addition, the procedure and selection criteria should always be recorded during the application process. Complete documentation can later enable the company to prove in court that only criteria other than those specified in Section 1 AGG led to the rejection of the application.

Carl-Philipp Fischer is an attorney with Eversheds Sutherland in Munich. © 2025 Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Reposted with permission of Lexology.