No liability for burnout without proven harmful working conditions
On December 19, 2023, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in a case in which an employee held her former employer liable for damages resulting from burnout and depression due to breach of the duty of care. The employee claimed to have worked under unsafe conditions for a long period of time, during which she felt intimidated, humiliated and bullied by a supervisor, among other things. However, the court ruled that the employer was not liable for damages in this case.
Employee must prove: what are harmful working conditions?
According to the court, it is up to the employee to prove that she worked under conditions that harmed her health. In this case, she failed to do so. The employee had cited six incidents with a supervisor that she had experienced as intimidating, humiliating and harmful. For example, she felt pressured in an after-hours conversation in which she was asked to communicate a change in the reporting line to her team.
She also reported interference with her job duties, coercive communication and feeling left out. However, the court ruled that, objectively, these events were not serious enough to qualify as harassment or intimidation. According to the court, they were business disagreements and tensions in the workplace, without coercion, aggression or structural transgressive behavior.
Important: Thus, an employee cannot be satisfied with the subjective perception of an unsafe work environment. There must be demonstrable, objectively burdensome working conditions beyond normal tensions or conflicts in the work environment.
Employer's duty of care not breached
The employer, Samsung, had policies on sexual harassment and a grievance procedure in place, including a counselor and confidential advisor. When the employee filed a formal complaint, it was investigated within weeks. The employer informed her of the process, conducted interviews and asked for written explanations.
The court ruled that Samsung had thus sufficiently fulfilled its duty of care under Section 7:658 of the Civil Code. The course of the reintegration process and the handling of a dispute about cross-border employment (the employee lived in Belgium) were also careful enough not to result in liability.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling reaffirms that for an employer to be liable for an employee's psychological injury, three conditions must be met:
- Working conditions must be objectively harmful;
- There must be a causal relationship between those circumstances and the complaints;
- The employer must have failed in its duty of care.
In this case, all three failed. So as an employer, you are not automatically liable for psychological damage. But always make sure you have a clear complaints policy, a safe work environment and a careful course of action when signals of absenteeism or conflict arise.
Supreme Court ruling
The judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal and its confirmation by the Supreme Court on March 28, 2025 make it clear: an employer is not always liable for psychological damage such as burnout. In the case against Samsung, the judges ruled that the employee had not sufficiently demonstrated that she was working under objectively harmful conditions, despite subjectively feeling unsafe and overworked. Her offer of proof was also passed over because it was not sufficiently concrete.
The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, making it clear that courts may impose requirements on both the substantiation of a duty of care violation and the offer of proof by employees. A general appeal to work pressure or an unhealthy atmosphere is simply not enough.
Conclusion
For employees, this means properly documenting complaints and signals, confirming conversations in writing and providing concrete evidence of where the employer is alleged to have fallen short.
For employers, the key is prevention and diligence. Take signals seriously, ensure a workable balance in workload, provide access to confidential advisors and record everything well. A thorough RI&E, HR file and proactive communication can make all the difference in any legal proceedings.
The ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeals is guiding. Not every burnout leads to employer liability. But prevention is better than cure. Take signals seriously, document carefully and ensure a safe corporate culture.
This blog was written by mr. Stijn Blom, employment lawyer at Arbeidsadvocaat.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and supports entrepreneurs and employees on a daily basis with a variety of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight contracts and regulations - with his practical and personal approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to know more? Visit Stijn's page.
Arbeidsadvocaat.nl is happy to think with you if you have questions about duty of care, workload or liability for work-related complaints. Please feel free to contact us .
April 2025
