Introduction
A law firm in the Zuidas was ordered to pay a substantial sum to a notary-in-training following a dispute over job performance and a strained working relationship. The court ruled that the firm had acted in a seriously culpable manner. In this blog, you can read exactly what happened and why the firm’s conduct was unacceptable.
The Case: From Bonus to Exit
A senior notary candidate had been employed at a large law firm in the Zuidas for six years. In 2023, she received another positive performance review and a bonus. While there was some criticism of her professional performance, nothing indicated any immediate problems.
In the summer of 2023, the situation changed: the notary candidate had to sit in on a partner’s office and was given some areas for improvement. She was also called out on the low number of billable hours.
In April 2024, however, she was suddenly given a “needs improvement” rating and was immediately told that there was no longer a future for her at the firm. She was offered a settlement agreement.
Escalation: From Mediation to a Wage Freeze
The notary candidate disagreed with the negative evaluation, in part because it lacked justification. She did not respond to the proposal to terminate her training.
The firm then attempted to provide an explanation and propose mediation, but since it was purely a matter of exit mediation, the candidate notary refused. The firm then stopped paying his salary and filed a petition with the labor court to have the employment contract terminated on the grounds of a disrupted working relationship or poor performance.
The judge ruled that the relationship had indeed been disrupted, in part because the notary candidate himself no longer wanted to return.
Ruling: grossly negligent conduct on the part of the employer
The judge terminated the employment contract but awarded the notary candidate substantial compensation:
- €150,000 in fair compensation due to the employer’s grossly negligent conduct.
- Six months of back pay, plus a 25% increase due to the wrongful suspension of pay.
The total compensation amounted to approximately €175,000 gross.
The judge ruled that the firm had increased the pressure to terminate the employment “in an inappropriate manner and in violation of the principles of good employment practices.” The firm’s conduct was sharply criticized.
Criticism of Office Culture
The office culture also came under heavy criticism. The judge found it unacceptable that remarks such as “stupid” and “dumb” were made and that a “dumb” hat was even awarded as a trophy. According to the judge, this behavior was inconsistent with good employment practices and contributed to the seriously culpable conduct.
Conclusion
This ruling demonstrates that applying pressure to terminate an employment relationship without proper justification or fair treatment carries risks. Unprofessional conduct and failure to adhere to the principles of good employment practices can result in substantial damages. Careful assessment and communication remain essential.
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 agreements 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 assist you if you have any questions about termination (and severance pay). Please feel free to contact us .
April 2025