Unjustly discriminated against: Beautician wins against insurance company

A self-employed beautician wanted to take out business interruption insurance in case of pregnancy. The company rejected her application. She was awarded €6.000 in damages for discrimination in court.

This article is part of the special feature on women in the trades.

Self-employed women who want to start a family face disadvantages in various aspects – for example, they currently do not have maternity leave like employees. While the federal government is working on corresponding draft legislation, there are no concrete results yet.

Until then, women can only make provisions for themselves through private insurance . A beautician who wanted to do just that was rejected by an insurer . "Not so fast!" ruled the Hanover Regional Court, strengthening her and all women's rights against unfair insurance conditions.

The case

A self-employed beautician wanted to start a family. She wanted to protect her income in case of disability through a business interruption insurance policy . However, the insurance company had excluded coverage for disability in its policy terms if the cause was related to pregnancy , abortion, miscarriage, or childbirth. The company explicitly confirmed to the woman that it did not cover this scenario.

The beautician did not sign a contract, but instead sued the insurer for compensation due to gender discrimination.

You might also be interested in:

Operations management

Home office: No deduction for business expenses without records

Craft policy

Alf Reuter receives a gold craftsman's badge

Craft policy

The cosmetics industry is fighting for mandatory master craftsman certification.

The judgment

The Hanover Regional Court ordered the insurance company to pay the woman €6.000 in compensation . The reason given was that the insurer had committed gender-based discrimination by not including insurable periods of incapacity for work due to pregnancy, abortion, miscarriage, or childbirth in her policy – ​​a violation of Sections 3 and 19 of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) . The court also noted that the EU Equal Treatment Directive extends the prohibition of discrimination beyond the workplace to include private legal transactions.

Therefore, if an insurer refuses coverage for this reason, such exclusions in practice exclusively affect women , the court explained. As a result, women wishing to have children receive less benefit than men, despite paying the same premium.

The exclusion implements a gender-specific distinction regarding symptoms that qualify as illnesses. For example, back pain could be considered an insured illness for a man. Conversely, pregnancy-related back pain or morning sickness would be grounds for denying coverage to a woman.

Importance for practice 

"This decision has far-reaching consequences for the insurance industry. It clarifies that gender-based discrimination in insurance terms and conditions is inadmissible ," summarizes lawyer Nicole Golomb . "Insurers may not stipulate exclusions for pregnancy-related incapacity for work if they thereby violate the General Equal Treatment Act . The decision is in line with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice , which ruled in 2011 that gender-based discrimination in the insurance sector is inadmissible . "

Hanover Regional Court, Judgment of October 28, 2025, Case No. 6 O 103/24

The advisors at the Chambers of Crafts will be happy to help you with any legal questions!

DHB now also available digitally! Simply click here and register for the digital German Crafts Journal (DHB)!