Gelderland District Court, 27 February 2026, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2026:2432
Facts
The employee had been employed by the employer since 13 September 2021. On the night of 20 to 21 September 2025, the employee picked up a colleague and drove around with her in a company car. Consensual sexual contact took place in the car. A dispute then arose that escalated into a physical altercation, during which the employee slapped his colleague in the face with an open hand. He then put her out of the car, while she was not yet fully dressed, and drove off.
After two colleagues became aware of this, the incident was reported to the employer on 26 September 2025. Following conversations with the colleague involved, a witness, and the employee himself, both the employee and his colleague were summarily dismissed on 2 October 2025. The employee requested annulment of the dismissal and continued payment of wages.
Ruling
The subdistrict court ruled that the summary dismissal was valid. Even though the conduct took place outside working hours, such conduct can still constitute an urgent cause. The conduct must, however, have a clearly negative effect on the employee’s performance, the employer’s reputation, or workplace relationships. That was the case here. The violent incident led to unrest in the workplace and also negatively affected the employer’s reputation.
The slap was classified as assault of a colleague, which is explicitly named as an urgent cause under Section 7:678(2)(e) of the Dutch Civil Code. The fact that the escalation was mutual did not change this. The defence of self-defence (or excessive self-defence) also failed, because the employee had put himself in the situation and the violence could not be justified.
The requirement of acting without delay was also met. The employer first conducted a careful investigation by hearing several people involved. Given the severity of summary dismissal as a measure of last resort, the employer was entitled to carry out this investigation before proceeding to dismissal.
The employee’s request was refused. He is not entitled to wages or compensation and was also ordered to pay the employer fixed statutory compensation equal to two months’ salary.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling confirms that conduct outside working hours can also constitute an urgent cause for summary dismissal, provided there is a clear link to the work situation.
For employers, it is particularly important that significant weight is given to physical violence between colleagues. Incidents in one’s private life can also have consequences for the employment relationship. In addition, a careful but prompt investigation is essential to meet the requirement of acting without delay. Maintaining a clear standard, for example through codes of conduct, is also important for a safe working environment.
This ruling also shows that employers are expected to act clearly and consistently against physical violence in the workplace or in a work-related context. Imposing too light a sanction can create the impression that such conduct is tolerated within the organisation. This is precisely why employers are expected to take these kinds of incidents seriously and set a clear standard for employees.
Do you have questions about summary dismissal or workplace integrity issues? Call one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
