Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, 23 March 2026, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:1714
Facts
The employee had worked as a teacher at a school community since 7 February 2000. Her children, including her daughter, were pupils at the same school during that period. Since 2017/2018, the employee had been in a relationship with a fellow teacher, without reporting this to the school.
In March 2024, her daughter told her she had a (sexual) relationship with this same colleague. The employee then ended her own relationship with him and assumed the relationship between her daughter and the colleague had also ended. She did not report this to the school.
On 9 March 2025, the employee discovered that the relationship between her daughter and the colleague was still ongoing. The colleague reported this to the school management on 10 March 2025 and was subsequently summarily dismissed. During a meeting on 17 March 2025, the employee confirmed she had known about the relationship since 2024. She was summarily dismissed that same day for failing to report this information to school management immediately. Her conduct constituted an urgent cause within the meaning of Section 7:677 of the Dutch Civil Code, justifying summary dismissal.
The subdistrict court ruled that the summary dismissal had been wrongly given, because the duty to report could, in this case, give way to the interests of the daughter. The employee was awarded damages and a transition payment. The school community appealed. The employee filed a cross-appeal, requesting fair compensation as well.
Ruling
The Court of Appeal ruled that the employee was subject to a clear duty to report. This duty followed not only from the school’s internal code of conduct and integrity, but also from Section 3.39(3) of the Secondary Education Act 2020 (WVO 2020). According to the Court of Appeal, the employee should have reported the relationship between her minor daughter and the colleague as early as March 2024.
According to the Court of Appeal, the fact that the employee was in a difficult position as the mother of the pupil involved did not change this. A justification for not immediately complying with the duty to report can only exist in exceptional cases of force majeure, which was ultimately not the case here. The Court of Appeal took into account that the employee did not report the matter for a long time, while she resumed her work and continued to collaborate with the colleague involved, including in preparing a school trip with minor pupils.
The argument that the dismissal was not given without delay also failed. According to the Court of Appeal, the school was entitled to wait to hear the employee until she had returned from the school trip, partly in view of organisational circumstances and the need for careful decision-making.
The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the subdistrict court’s decision and declared the summary dismissal valid. The employee is not entitled to fixed statutory compensation, a transition payment, or fair compensation, and must repay the amounts already received.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling shows that the duty to report carries very significant weight in education, certainly where there are signs of sexually inappropriate conduct or a relationship between a staff member and a minor pupil. Employers in the education sector may set high standards for employees, partly because of their responsibility to safeguard a safe learning environment.
This ruling also shows how important it is to have a clear code of conduct and integrity policy in which duties to report are explicitly set out. In addition, the ruling shows that education employees can be expected to take active and independent responsibility for reporting serious integrity issues. Breaching that duty to report can, depending on the circumstances, constitute an urgent cause for summary dismissal.
Do you have questions about summary dismissal? Please feel free to contact one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
