The subdistrict court ruled on the summary dismissal of an employee who allegedly threatened his supervisor. Although the employer claimed there had been death threats, the subdistrict court ruled that the dismissal did not stand. Decisive here was that the employer had insufficiently taken into account the employee’s known, serious mental health issues.
Facts
The employee had worked for the employer since 2 September 2020, initially through a staffing agency and later directly employed on an indefinite-term contract as an operator.
The employee suffered from serious mental health problems and had become unfit for work in early 2025 due to a psychosis. The employer was aware of this and had, in an earlier conversation report, recorded doubts about continuing the employment, partly out of fear of a relapse. In May 2025, the employee reported having recovered. Shortly afterwards, he stated he was being bullied by colleagues and that he had stopped taking his medication.
On 15 July 2025, an incident took place in which, according to the employer, the employee seriously verbally threatened his supervisor. He was summarily dismissed that same day. The employee denied making the statements and argued that his conduct was partly caused by his mental state.
Ruling of the subdistrict court
The subdistrict court first noted that it is up to the employer to prove an urgent cause. Although it could not be ruled out that the statements had been made as claimed by the employer, the subdistrict court nevertheless ruled that the summary dismissal was not valid.
Summary dismissal is the most severe measure in employment law and may only be applied as a last resort. In assessing it, not only the severity of the conduct must be considered, but also the employee’s personal circumstances. In this case, it weighed heavily that the employer knew of the employee’s mental health problems, his earlier psychosis, and the fact that he had, shortly before the incident, reported that he had stopped taking his medication.
The subdistrict court considered it plausible that these circumstances had influenced the employee’s conduct. By failing to take this into account and proceeding directly to summary dismissal, the employer had acted carelessly. The dismissal was therefore annulled.
Consequences
Because the summary dismissal was annulled, the employment contract continued. The employer was ordered to continue paying wages from the date of the dismissal, plus holiday allowance, the statutory increase, and statutory interest.
The employee’s request for a rectification to colleagues was refused. According to the subdistrict court, a rectification would give unnecessary publicity to the matter and make the employee’s return to the workplace more difficult.
Conclusion
This ruling shows that, even in the case of very serious conduct, such as (alleged) threats, summary dismissal is not automatically justified. Employers must always take an employee’s personal circumstances into account in their decision-making, especially where known mental health problems are involved. Failing to do so can mean the dismissal does not stand.
What does this mean for employers?
For employers, this case underlines the importance of care when taking disciplinary measures. Where it is known that an employee is dealing with mental health problems, it must be explicitly assessed what role these circumstances played in the incident and whether less far-reaching measures are possible.
Do you have questions about summary dismissal or how to deal with employees with mental health problems? Please feel free to contact one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
