{"id":5849,"date":"2026-08-13T18:52:08","date_gmt":"2026-08-13T15:52:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/fair-compensation-what-factors-determine-the-amount-part-2\/"},"modified":"2026-08-16T15:44:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-16T12:44:34","slug":"fair-compensation-what-factors-determine-the-amount-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/fair-compensation-what-factors-determine-the-amount-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Fair Compensation: What Factors Determine the Amount? Part 2."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Last updated: August 2026<\/p>\n\n

Part 1<\/a> revealed, among other things, that the median fair compensation is \u20ac15,000 and that the basis makes a big difference. But what factors determine whether fair compensation is high or low? <\/p>\n\n

\n
\n
\n

KEY FACTORS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

5 to 6<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

in most cases<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

70%<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

culpability under the WG<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

AWARDED\/CLAIMED<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

~25%<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

median ratio<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

AWARDS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.043<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

analyzed<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

The Supreme Court refers to \u201cconsiderations,\u201d which, strictly speaking, is more accurate. Here, I use the term \u201cfactors\u201d as a practical umbrella term for the considerations that judges explicitly include in their reasoning regarding the budget. <\/p>\n\n

What factors do judges most often cite in relation to the budget?<\/h2>\n\n
\n

Graph: Frequency of Factors (loading…)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

In 1,043 cases in which equitable compensation was awarded, I used AI to examine which factors the judge explicitly considered in the reasoning behind the award. The picture is clear: in practice, judges rely on a core set of five to six factors. <\/p>\n\n

The degree of the employer\u2019s culpability is explicitly stated in 70% of cases. The expected remaining duration of employment is stated in 60%. Loss of income or wages is stated in 56%. Together, these three factors form the basis for the calculation: how serious was the employer\u2019s conduct, how long would the employment relationship have lasted without that conduct, and what is the loss of income over that period? <\/p>\n\n

Below that is a second layer: the employee\u2019s labor market status is explicitly taken into account in 36% of cases. Whether benefits are deducted is considered in 31%. Whether the employee has found new employment is considered in 30%. And non-pecuniary damages are considered in 26%. <\/p>\n\n

Factors such as loss of pension benefits (13%), suspension from duty (11%), and the employer\u2019s financial situation (8%) occur less frequently, but, as will be shown below, are strongly correlated with the amount when they are taken into account.<\/p>\n\n

Boot & Pesser (2024) [1] analyzed factors in 139 court rulings covering 2021\u20132023 and found that lost wages and expected duration are most frequently taken into account, followed by expected future earnings and the employer\u2019s liability. My data shows a similar picture, although the exact ranking differs because I count loss of income and expected remaining duration as separate factors. In both studies, loss of income, remaining duration, and employer liability are the key factors. <\/p>\n\n

What higher or lower amounts are associated with those factors?<\/h2>\n\n
\n

Graph: Correlation between factors and height (loading…)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

The question is not only how often a factor occurs, but also: how does that factor affect the amount of fair compensation? For each factor, I compared the median fair compensation in cases where the factor explicitly acted as an increasing or decreasing factor with the overall median of \u20ac15,000. <\/p>\n\n

The strongest positive correlation: when missed bonuses or variable compensation are explicitly included in the budget, the median is \u20ac95,000. That is \u20ac80,000 above the overall median. In the case of pension losses, the median is \u20ac68,000 (+\u20ac53,000). In the case of suspension from duty, the figure is \u20ac50,000 (+\u20ac35,000). In the case of an unfavorable labor market position, the figure is \u20ac49,033 (+\u20ac34,000). <\/p>\n\n

On the lower end: if short-term employment is taken into account as a reducing factor, the median is \u20ac6,300 (\u2212\u20ac8,700 compared to the overall median). If the employee is at fault, the figure is \u20ac10,000 (\u2212\u20ac5,000). If the court determines that the employer could also have lawfully terminated the employment contract, the median is also \u20ac10,000 (\u2212\u20ac5,000). <\/p>\n\n

These figures show correlation, not causation. A factor such as pension loss does not directly \u201ccause\u201d a higher equitable award. Cases in which pension loss plays a role typically involve older employees with longer tenures and higher salaries. What the figures do show is this: when a judge explicitly includes a particular factor in the assessment, how does the median award in those cases compare to the overall median of \u20ac15,000? <\/p>\n\n

Which type of charge is associated with the highest amounts?<\/h2>\n\n

In addition to the budgetary factors, I also examined which types of allegations by the employer were associated with the highest amounts. Allegations of intentionally disrupting the employment relationship were associated with a median of \u20ac40,000. Allegations of an inadequate improvement plan were associated with \u20ac39,250. A violation of reintegration obligations resulted in \u20ac34,565. Unjustified summary dismissal was associated with a median of \u20ac7,500, consistent with the picture presented in Part 1 that terminations subject to annulment typically result in structurally lower amounts. <\/p>\n\n

Which pairs of factors stand out?<\/h2>\n\n
\n

Graph: Notable combinations of factors (loading…)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

How much of the amount claimed will be awarded?<\/h2>\n\n
\n

Chart: Requested vs. Granted (loading)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

In 875 rulings, both the amount claimed and the amount awarded are known. The median of the amount claimed is \u20ac58,328. The median of the amount awarded is \u20ac15,000. That is approximately one-quarter of the amount claimed. This ratio is also remarkably stable across categories: approximately 25% for grossly negligent conduct, 28% for voidable termination, 26% for appeals, and 25% for directors. <\/p>\n\n

Beukhof & Rietveld (2017) [2] concluded, based on 100 court rulings, that on average about one-third of the amount claimed is awarded. My data shows a similar but more nuanced picture: the median ratio is 27%, and the average is 37%. The difference is explained by a number of cases in which the judge awarded more than was claimed, or in which the amount claimed was very low. <\/p>\n\n

In conclusion<\/h2>\n\n

The data from Parts 1 and 2 reveal a number of clear patterns. At \u20ac15,000, the median fair compensation is significantly lower than the averages of over \u20ac40,000 reported in legal literature. Judges typically rely on a limited set of factors, with loss of earnings and the expected remaining duration of employment forming the core. Furthermore, the factors that the judge explicitly includes in the calculation are strongly correlated with the amount awarded. This makes the fair compensation less unpredictable than is often assumed. Anyone who knows which basis applies, which factors are considered, and in what direction they influence the outcome can make a more realistic estimate than one based solely on averages. <\/p>\n\n

In the coming weeks, I’ll be sharing more case law analyses.<\/p>\n\n

[1] R.J. Boot & D.J. Pesser, \u201cManifestly Unreasonable Severance Pay Versus Fair Compensation,\u201d ArbeidsRecht 2024[2] M. Beukhof & R. Rietveld, \u201cFair Compensation: Factors Reducing the Amount in Figures,\u201d TvO 2017\/2<\/p>\n\n

\n

Research Accountability<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study is based on 4,252 rulings on fair compensation issued by Dutch district courts and courts of appeal, published on rechtspraak.nl between July 1, 2015, and March 29, 2026. The data extraction and analysis were performed using the Anthropic Batch API (Claude Sonnet). The core factual fields were validated through manual verification of 100 rulings (accuracy approximately 94%). For the legal arguments, accuracy ranged from 85% to 90%. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

\u2190 Previous: Fair Compensation: The Amount (Part 1)<\/a><\/p>\n\n

\n

Need advice on fair compensation?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

We advise employers and employees on strategy and expected outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Schedule a Call<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last updated: August 2026 Part 1 revealed, among other things, that the median fair compensation is \u20ac15,000 and that the basis makes a big difference. But what factors determine whether fair compensation is high or low? KEY FACTORS 5 to 6 in most cases MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED 70% culpability under the WG AWARDED\/CLAIMED ~25% median […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5850,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"navigation_state":true,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5849","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-niet-gecategoriseerd"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5849","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5849"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5849\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5850"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5849"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5849"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}