Report of inappropriate behaviour: how an employer mishandled the process

When an employee reports inappropriate behaviour, it may be tempting for an employer to leave the entire handling of the matter to an external investigation bureau. However, the employer remains ultimately responsible for the integrity of the process. This was emphasised in a recent judgment by the Court of Appeal of ’s-Hertogenbosch (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2025:430). In that case, an employee who had filed a report was summarily dismissed on the basis of an external investigation report. The Court of Appeal held that the investigation contained serious flaws and that the employer had adopted the report uncritically. The dismissal was overturned, and the employee was awarded fair compensation of €30,000.

Background and first instance

The case concerned an employee who reported inappropriate behaviour by his supervisor. In his complaint, he described in particular that the supervisor had imposed himself on him. The employer then commissioned an independent investigation, which concluded that the employee’s report was unfounded. Based on the investigation’s findings, the employer summarily dismissed the reporting employee.

However, the subdistrict court ruled that the evidence for summary dismissal was insufficient: the investigation was too one-sided, there had been no proper opportunity for both parties to be heard, and the dismissal letter was too generally worded. Result: the dismissal was invalid, and the employee was awarded a transition allowance, fixed compensation, and fair compensation of €10,000.

Appeal: stricter assessment

The employee appealed the subdistrict court’s decision. The Court of Appeal confirmed that there was no urgent cause but increased the fair compensation to €30,000. According to the court, the investigation had not been aimed at establishing the truth but at incriminating the reporting employee. The employee had not been given a real opportunity to respond to his supervisor’s statements, and the report contained hardly any concrete quotations. Part of the report had also been shared internally, potentially causing reputational damage. The court did note, to a limited extent, that the employee’s complaint was unclear on some points.

Central to the court’s decision were three key points: (1) the employer bore the burden of proof for the urgent cause and failed to meet it, (2) the investigation violated the fundamental principles of fair hearing and was insufficiently transparent, and (3) the internal communication based on a flawed report was careless and reputationally damaging.

Key takeaways for employers

This ruling highlights the need for employers to act carefully when handling reports of inappropriate behaviour. Employers cannot fully and uncritically rely on an external investigation report. It remains the employer’s responsibility to ensure that the investigation is aimed at establishing the truth, that both parties are fairly heard, and that the employer critically assesses the substantiation. Furthermore, a dismissal letter must be concrete and factually substantiated, and internal communication should be limited strictly to those who need to know.