No Liability for Burnout Without Proven Harmful Working Conditions

On December 19, 2023, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal issued a ruling in a case in which an employee held her former employer liable for damages resulting from burnout and depression caused by a breach of the duty of care. The employee stated that she had worked for an extended period under unsafe conditions, during which she felt, among other things, intimidated, humiliated, and bullied by a supervisor. However, the court ruled that the employer is not liable for the damages in this case.

Employee Must Prove: What Constitutes Harmful Working Conditions?

According to the court, it is up to the employee to prove that she worked under conditions that caused harm to her health. In this case, she was unable to do so. The employee had cited six incidents involving a supervisor that she had experienced as intimidating, humiliating, and harmful. For example, she felt pressured during a conversation after work, in which she was asked to communicate a change in the reporting structure to her team.

She also reported interference with her job responsibilities, coercive communication, and the feeling of being sidelined. The court, however, ruled that, viewed objectively, these incidents were not serious enough to qualify as harassment or intimidation. According to the judge, these were professional disagreements and workplace tensions, without coercion, aggression, or systematic inappropriate behavior.

Important: An employee’s subjective perception of an unsafe work environment is therefore not sufficient. There must be demonstrable, objectively stressful working conditions that go beyond normal tensions or conflicts in the workplace.

Employer’s Duty of Care Not Violated

The employer, Samsung, had established a policy on harassment and a complaint procedure, which included a counselor and a confidential advisor. When the employee filed a formal complaint, it was investigated within a few weeks. The employer kept her informed about the process, held discussions with her, and asked for a written explanation.

The court ruled that Samsung had thereby sufficiently fulfilled its duty of care under Article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code. Furthermore, the conduct of the reintegration process and the resolution of a dispute regarding the employee’s status as a cross-border worker (the employee resided in Belgium) were sufficiently diligent to preclude liability.

What does this mean for employers?

This ruling reaffirms that an employer is liable for an employee’s psychological injury only if three conditions are met:

The working conditions must be objectively harmful;
There must be a causal link between those circumstances and the symptoms;
The employer must have failed to fulfill its duty of care.

In this case, all three failed. As an employer, you are therefore not automatically liable for psychological harm. However, you should always ensure you have a clear complaint policy, a safe work environment, and a thorough process for addressing signs of absenteeism or conflicts.

Supreme Court Ruling

The ruling by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal and its affirmation by the Supreme Court on March 28, 2025, make it clear: an employer is not always liable for psychological harm such as burnout. In the case against Samsung, the judges ruled that the employee had failed to sufficiently demonstrate that she was working under objectively harmful conditions, despite the fact that she subjectively felt unsafe and overburdened. Her offer to provide evidence was also rejected because it was not sufficiently specific.

The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, thereby making it clear that judges may impose requirements regarding both the substantiation of a breach of the duty of care and the evidence presented by employees. A general reference to work pressure or an unhealthy work environment is simply not enough.

Conclusion

For employees, this means they must thoroughly document complaints and concerns, confirm conversations in writing, and provide specific evidence of where the employer may have failed to meet its obligations.

For employers, the key lies in prevention and due diligence. Take warning signs seriously, ensure a manageable work-life balance, provide access to confidential advisors, and document everything thoroughly. A thorough Risk Assessment and Evaluation (RI&E), HR records, and proactive communication can make all the difference in the event of legal proceedings.

The ruling by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal sets a precedent. Not every case of burnout results in employer liability. But prevention is better than cure. Take warning signs seriously, document them carefully, and foster a safe workplace culture.

This blog was written by Stijn Blom, Esq., an employment law attorney at Arbeidsadvocaat.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and assists employers and employees on a daily basis with a wide range of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight contracts and policies—with his practical and personalized approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to learn more? Visit Stijn’s page.

Arbeidsadvocaat.nl is happy to work with you if you have questions about the duty of care, work-related stress, or liability for work-related complaints. Please feel free to contact us .

April 2025