Overview: Rising discrimination complaints and the push for AGG reform
Germany recorded a record number of discrimination inquiries in 2025, prompting the first major reform of the General Act on Equal Treatment (AGG) in about two decades. The sharp rise in reports — across racial discrimination, disability, gender and other grounds — has intensified public debate about legal protection, institutional capacity and the remaining gaps that leave many people without effective remedies.
Key figures from the Federal Anti-Discrimination Office show 13,067 advisory inquiries in 2025, an increase of roughly 15 percent compared with 2024 and more than double the number in 2019. These numbers have pushed lawmakers and civil society to demand stronger enforcement, better resources and broader legal coverage to address discrimination in everyday life and public services.
What the 2025 statistics reveal
The distribution of reported discrimination shows that racism remains the most frequent reason people seek help, followed by disability or chronic illness and gender. Many cases involve interactions with public authorities, police or the education system — contexts where the AGG currently has limited reach. Understanding these patterns is essential to shaping an effective reform.
| Category | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Total advisory inquiries (2025) | 13,067 | — |
| Change vs 2024 | +1,662 | +15% |
| Racial discrimination | 4,571 | 43% |
| Disability / chronic illness | — | 27% |
| Gender | — | 22% |
| Age | — | 12% |
| Religion / belief | — | ~7% |
| Sexual identity | — | ~4% |
| Reported cases involving public authorities and state context | ~2,500+ | ~25% (including >1,400 authority cases, >500 police/justice, ~600 education) |
| Source: Federal Anti-Discrimination Office (annual advisory figures) | ||
Main elements of the AGG reform proposal
The government proposal presented in 2026 aims to modernize the AGG by clarifying legal language, extending procedural deadlines, expanding protection in everyday life and strengthening the role of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Office (ADS). Below are the reform’s central elements as described in the draft.
Longer time limits for claims
One concrete change is an extension of the exclusion period for asserting AGG claims. Under the current law claimants had only two months to bring a claim; the reform would lengthen that period to four months. The aim is to give victims more time to gather evidence, obtain advice and pursue remedies.
Wider scope of protection in everyday life
The draft broadens protection against sexual harassment beyond the workplace to everyday settings such as housing, fitness centers and driving schools. It also refines rules on discrimination in rental markets to better protect people, particularly women, from biased treatment by landlords.
- Extension of sexual harassment protections to non-work environments.
- Adaptation of rental law safeguards to address gender-based discrimination.
- Terminology update: replacing the term “age” with “life age” and strengthening protections for pregnancy and motherhood.
Strengthening the Antidiscrimination Office and dispute resolution
The reform foresees stronger institutional support for claimants, including a new conciliation mechanism within the ADS for out-of-court dispute resolution. The ADS would gain clearer powers to offer mediation, submit statements to courts and assist parties in litigation, improving access to advice and legal support.
Reactions: government vs. critics
The reform has met a mixed reception. Supporters in government describe it as an update that closes legal gaps, implements European requirements and makes enforcement more effective. Critics — including leading anti-discrimination advocates and many civil society groups — argue the package is insufficient to address deep structural problems.
Government position
Proponents say the changes will make the AGG a more modern and usable tool: clearer wording should reduce legal uncertainty, extended deadlines will help claimants, and new protections will cover more everyday situations. Strengthening the ADS is presented as a step toward better support and dispute resolution outside the courts.
Critics and civil society concerns
Critics warn that essential gaps remain. Many victims will still lack access to legal remedies when discrimination comes from state bodies, in healthcare, or through algorithmic decision-making. Observers also say the proposed budget and powers for the ADS fall short of what is needed for effective monitoring, advice and strategic litigation.
- Calls to explicitly include state authorities and public services within AGG protection.
- Demands for stronger remedies against algorithmic or AI-driven discrimination.
- Requests for more resources and a clearer litigation mandate for the ADS to bring test cases.
Remaining gaps and practical recommendations
Numbers and debate show that legal change alone is not enough. To turn reform into real protection for people who experience discrimination, lawmakers should consider a combined approach that broadens legal coverage, increases institutional capacity and invests in prevention and education.
- Explicitly extend AGG coverage to actions by state institutions, public authorities and law enforcement to close a large gap in protection.
- Include healthcare settings and algorithmic decision-making within the law’s remit, with clear rules for liability and contesting biased automated decisions.
- Grant the Federal Anti-Discrimination Office stronger procedural powers, including an explicit right to litigate strategic cases and elevated institutional status to secure stable funding.
- Increase funding for advice, monitoring and strategic litigation so resources match the scale of need and international benchmarks.
- Complement legal reform with prevention: targeted public education, training for public servants and anti-bias measures in institutions.
- Consider expanding the list of protected characteristics in lawmaking debates to include social status, chronic illness, parenthood, language, gender identity and weight where relevant.
Conclusion: law, resources and culture must work together
The rise in discrimination inquiries in 2025 has rightly driven political action. The proposed AGG reforms include helpful steps — longer deadlines, broader protections for sexual harassment in daily life and stronger ADR capacity at the ADS — but they are only part of the answer. Effective anti-discrimination policy requires law, well-funded institutions, prevention and sustained cultural change. Without stronger coverage of state actions, investment in the ADS and concrete measures against algorithmic bias and in healthcare, many people will remain inadequately protected.
Policymakers should treat the current reform as a foundation to build upon: refine the law, resource enforcement and pair legal rights with education and monitoring so that the AGG can meet the realities of discrimination in contemporary Germany.
