Court backs dismissal after Hyrox participation
The employer was allowed to end the employment immediately after an employee on sick leave took part in a gruelling fitness competition.
A subdistrict court judge has ruled that the summary dismissal of an employee on sick leave was lawful. According to the judge, the decisive factor was not that she exercised while ill, but that her statements about her capacity had damaged her employer’s trust.
The case concerned an employee of an estate agency who reported sick on 10 February 2026. In messages to her employer, she had said, according to the ruling, that she had glandular fever, tired quickly and was unable to work. Yet on 27 March she took part in a Hyrox event, a fitness competition involving running and strength exercises.
The employer discovered this on 1 April and confronted her the following day. She was summarily dismissed a day later. Among other things, the employee asked the court for wages, a transition payment and fair compensation. She accepted that the employment had ended, but disputed the lawfulness of the dismissal.
The subdistrict court in Tilburg distinguished between medical incapacity for work and the relationship of trust. Whether someone is fit to work is in principle a matter for the occupational physician. However, the employer did not have to establish itself whether taking part in Hyrox was medically responsible, the judge ruled. The allegation was that the employee had given a misleading impression of her capacity.
The judge pointed out that the parties had previously discussed restoring trust. In that light, the court considered it understandable that the employer viewed participation in the event, shortly after the statements about severe fatigue, as a breach of trust. According to the ruling, the dismissal was also issued promptly and the employee had been given an opportunity beforehand to explain her side.
The employee received no fair compensation because the dismissal was lawful. The judge did, however, award a gross transition payment of €877.50, and partially upheld her claim for outstanding wages. The employer was also awarded limited compensation of €2,106 gross and €153.90 gross for excess holiday taken.
The ruling does not mean that exercising while ill is generally prohibited. Nor does taking part in a sporting event automatically mean that someone is fit for work. The decision concerns the specific statements, the communication between employer and employee, and the trust that developed in this employment relationship.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The employee reported sick, took part in a Hyrox event and was then summarily dismissed.
- The judge based the decision on a breach of trust, not on a general ban on exercising while ill.
- The employee did receive a transition payment.
Left
Arguments Employees must be protected from employers drawing conclusions about medical capacity from participation in sport. An employee may be able to undertake activities outside work that differ from the specific duties performed at work.
Values Employee protection, medical privacy and the balance of power in the workplace.
Consequences A broad interpretation of breach of trust could make it harder for employees on sick leave to undertake activities that support their recovery.
Centre
Arguments Each case should be assessed individually by considering statements, communication and the occupational physician’s assessment. The judge must prevent participation in sport from automatically being treated as evidence of fitness for work.
Values Carefulness, proportionality and institutional review.
Consequences That leaves room for recovery activities, but allows dismissal where demonstrable deception has permanently damaged trust.
Right
Arguments An employer must be able to rely on information from an employee who reports sick. Someone who takes part in a demanding event shortly afterwards while having reported serious limitations may lose that trust.
Values Responsibility, reliability and protection of employers against abuse.
Consequences A clear boundary can make sickness absence more credible, but calls for restraint so that not every different activity leads to dismissal.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The substance and amounts correspond to the published ruling. The text makes clear that the case does not establish that exercising while ill is prohibited in itself.
- confirmed The employee reported sick on 10 February 2026 and took part in a Hyrox event on 27 March. — Mentioned in the summary of the ruling. source
- confirmed The summary dismissal was declared lawful. — The subdistrict court judge classified the dismissal as lawful. source
- confirmed The transition payment amounted to €877.50 gross. — The amount is stated in the ruling. source
- confirmed Exercising while ill is not automatically prohibited. — The ruling assesses the specific breach of trust; the Dutch government describes the exceptions to the ban on dismissal during illness. source
Editor's note
The ruling and general dismissal rules are available. The names of the employee and employer have been anonymised in the ruling.Sources
- Uitspraak ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:8540 — Semantius
- Ontslag op staande voet terecht voor ziekgemelde werknemer die meedoet aan Hyrox — Salaris Vanmorgen
- Mag ik worden ontslagen als ik ziek of arbeidsongeschikt ben? — Rijksoverheid
More on this in Dutch media
- Het Parool — „arbeidsrecht ontslag”
- Trouw — „arbeidsrecht ontslag”
- NRC — „arbeidsrecht ontslag”