District Court of Gelderland 27 February 2026, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2026:2432
Facts
The employee has 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 started driving a company car with her. Sexual contact with mutual consent took place in the car. This was followed by an altercation that degenerated into a fight, in which the employee hit his colleague in the face with the flat of his hand. He then put her out of the car while she was not yet fully dressed, after which he drove away.
After two colleagues became aware of this, the incident was reported to the employer on September 26, 2025. After discussions 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 that the dismissal be annulled and continued payment of wages.
Judgement
The subdistrict court ruled that the instant dismissal was legally valid. Despite the fact that the conduct took place outside working hours, such conduct may still constitute an urgent reason. The behaviour must then have a clear negative impact on the employee’s performance, the good name of the company or the relationships in the workplace. That was the case here. The violent incident has led to unrest in the workplace. In addition, the incident also had a negative impact on the good name of the employer.
The slap is regarded as assault on a colleague, which is explicitly mentioned as an urgent reason in Article 7:678 paragraph 2 opening words and under e of the Dutch Civil Code. The fact that there was a mutual escalation does not alter this. The appeal to the emergency defence (excess) also failed, because the employee had put himself in the situation and the violence could not be justified.
In addition, the requirement of immediacy has been met. The employer first conducted a careful investigation by interviewing several people involved. In view of the seriousness of the instant dismissal (as an ultimum remedium), the employer was allowed to carry out these investigative acts before proceeding with the dismissal.
The employee’s request was rejected. He is not entitled to wages or allowances and is also ordered to pay the employer fixed damages of two months’ salary.
What does this mean for employers?
This judgment confirms that conduct outside working hours can also constitute an urgent reason for instant dismissal, provided that there is a clear link with the work situation.
For employers, it is particularly important that heavy weight is given to physical violence between colleagues. Incidents in the private sphere can also have consequences for the employment relationship. In addition, a careful but expeditious investigation is essential for meeting the requirement of immediacy. Moreover, maintaining a clear standard, for example through codes of conduct, is important for a safe working environment.
This judgment also shows that the employer can be expected to take clear and consistent action against physical violence in the workplace or in a work-related context. When a sanction that is too light is imposed, it can give the impression that such behaviour is tolerated within the organisation. That is precisely why employers are required to take these types of incidents seriously and to set a clear standard for employees.
Do you have questions about instant dismissal or integrity issues in the workplace? Call one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full judgment.
