Judge: dismissal too severe, conduct remained unacceptable
An Overijssel employee receives more than €61,000 after being summarily dismissed, although the judge called his conduct culpable.
According to the subdistrict court judge, a textile company should not have summarily dismissed an employee. The judge found colleagues’ complaints about unwanted touching and sexually suggestive remarks proven, and called the conduct unacceptable, but ruled that the employer should have issued a warning first.
The case concerns a 59-year-old employee who had worked since 2000 for a producer of household textiles and upholstery. Following complaints from six female colleagues, he was suspended and an investigation was launched. The complaints included unwanted touching, inappropriate remarks and asking for kisses.
The subdistrict court judge in Zwolle found the unwanted touching and sexually suggestive remarks proven. That does not mean the conduct was harmless: the judge called it culpable and unacceptable. The employee therefore could not remain in employment without consequences.
The dispute mainly concerned the most severe form of dismissal. Summary dismissal ends the employment contract immediately and requires an urgent reason. The judge found that the employer should have taken into account the employee’s long and otherwise unblemished career, as well as his age.
According to the ruling, the company should first have issued the employee with a clear warning and given him the opportunity to change his behaviour. That finding does not undo the complaints or absolve the employee of responsibility. It only establishes that the employment-law measure chosen was disproportionate.
The employee will receive nearly €25,000 in statutory transition payment, more than €11,000 in wages covering the notice period and €25,000 in additional compensation for the wrongful dismissal. More than €1,000 in legal costs will be added. The total therefore exceeds €61,000.
The ruling illustrates the tension between two employer obligations. A company must protect employees from inappropriate conduct and cannot simply do nothing. At the same time, a dismissal procedure must be legally careful and proportionate. Which measure is appropriate depends on the seriousness of the conduct, the evidence, any previous warnings and the employee’s circumstances.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The judge found the employee’s conduct culpable and unacceptable.
- The judge found summary dismissal disproportionate in these circumstances.
- According to the ruling, the employer should have issued a warning first.
- The employee will receive more than €61,000 in compensation and legal costs.
Left
Arguments Employers have a major responsibility to protect employees from inappropriate conduct. A long service record must not mean that colleagues have to tolerate feeling unsafe; organisations need clear standards and effective reporting channels.
Values Safety at work, equality and protection for employees who report complaints.
Consequences Employers will need to intervene more quickly, but also invest in prevention, investigation and support so that punishment is not the only response after the event.
Centre
Arguments The ruling confirms that both interests apply: unwanted conduct must be addressed consistently, but dismissal must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct, the evidence and the employment-law context.
Values Carefulness, proportionality and legal protection.
Consequences A step-by-step approach involving a warning, support and clear conditions can combine safety with legal robustness.
Right
Arguments Anyone who approaches colleagues in an unwanted manner and creates an unsafe working environment must take dismissal into account. Employers must retain room to act quickly, because excessive procedural caution can undermine authority and safety in the workplace.
Values Responsibility, clear standards and employer authority.
Consequences A high threshold for dismissal could discourage organisations from pursuing firm policies; judges should therefore be cautious about substituting their assessment for that of the employer.
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 amounts, legal assessment and relevant circumstances were checked against the published ruling and reporting based on it. The text distinguishes between proven conduct and the proportionality of the dismissal.
- confirmed The judge found unwanted touching and sexually suggestive remarks proven. — This follows from the published ruling and RTL’s summary. source
- confirmed According to the judge, summary dismissal was too severe. — The subdistrict court judge ruled that a warning and an opportunity to improve were necessary. source
- confirmed The total compensation amounts to more than €61,000. — RTL breaks the amount down into transition payment, wages and additional compensation. source
- confirmed Summary dismissal requires an urgent reason. — The general explanation by Rijksoverheid describes the conditions for dismissal and dismissal procedures. source
Editor's note
The ruling confirms both that the conduct was unacceptable and that summary dismissal was too severe. The employee concerned has not been named because he has no public role.Sources
- Aanrakingen en kusjes vragen; onterecht ontslagen man vangt 60.000 euro — RTL Nieuws
- Uitspraak ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:5575 — Rechtspraak.nl
- Wat moet ik doen als ik een werknemer wil ontslaan? — Rijksoverheid