Employer liability for health damage often hinges on whether there is a sufficient link between the alleged complaints and the employee’s work. In its judgment of 22 January 2026, the Amsterdam District Court once again emphasised the importance of this causal link. You can read here how this case unfolded and what this might mean for you.
What happened?
The proceedings were preceded by a long-running dispute between the employee and Shell concerning working conditions, performance appraisals and support during illness and reintegration.
The employee, who was also suffering from serious eye problems, claimed that for a prolonged period he had been confronted with an unsafe working environment, insufficient support from his managers and, in his view, an unjustified low performance rating during his period of illness. According to the employee, these circumstances had led to burnout and Shell had thereby breached its duty of care and the standard of good employment practices. After internal procedures and reintegration efforts had failed to produce a solution, the employee held Shell liable for the damage to his health and financial loss he claimed to have suffered.
Shell disputed that the burnout was work-related and argued that there was no causal link between the symptoms and the working conditions.
What was the subdistrict court’s ruling?
The subdistrict court dismissed all of the employee’s claims. According to the court, the employee had failed to sufficiently substantiate that he had developed a work-related burnout and that Shell could be held liable for the damages he claimed.
Der Amtsrichter weist alle Ansprüche des Arbeitnehmers zurück. Nach Ansicht des Gerichts hat der Arbeitnehmer nicht hinreichend dargelegt, dass er ein arbeitsbedingtes Burnout entwickelt hat und dass Shell für den von ihm geltend gemachten Schaden haftbar gemacht werden kann.
No established burnout
The employee bases his claims primarily on a report from a company doctor he had engaged. However, the subdistrict court judge attributed limited probative value to this report.
In this regard, it is considered significant that the report is largely based on the employee’s own statements and that no consultation took place with Shell, Shell’s occupational physician or other parties involved. Furthermore, the available medical information does not indicate that a medical diagnosis of burnout was actually made.
For this reason alone, the subdistrict court considers that it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the work-related burnout alleged by the employee actually occurred.
Lack of causal link between symptoms and work
Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that burnout did occur, the subdistrict court held that it had not been sufficiently established that these symptoms were caused by the working conditions at Shell. The court emphasised that psychological symptoms often have multiple causes.
The case file shows that, in addition to the work situation, other factors may have played a role, including the employee’s long-standing eye problems, the medical treatments associated with these, and a serious fire incident in his private life.
Against this background, the employee has not put forward sufficient facts and circumstances to show that his complaints can be attributed predominantly to the working conditions. Consequently, an essential requirement for the employer’s liability is lacking.
No breach of the duty of care by Shell
Nor do the employee’s allegations regarding working conditions hold water. The subdistrict court judge considers it insufficiently plausible that there was systematic bullying, intimidation or a socially unsafe working environment.
Although the case file indicates tensions and differences of opinion in the workplace, these circumstances cannot automatically be classified as undesirable or inappropriate behaviour for which the employer is responsible. Nor is there any evidence that Shell ignored signs of such problems.
In addition, the subdistrict court dismissed the complaint that Shell had issued an unjustified negative performance review during the period of sick leave. The employer was entitled to assess the employee’s performance over the period in which work was carried out and had taken sufficient account of the employee’s medical situation in doing so. There is therefore no question of a breach of the duty of care or a violation of the principle of good employment practices.
The full judgment can be read here.
Practical implications
This judgment confirms that employees who hold their employer liable for psychological complaints cannot simply rely on demonstrating a stressful work situation. They will also have to substantiate that there is a medically diagnosed condition and that there is a sufficient causal link between the complaints and the work.
Particularly in the case of mental health issues, which often have multiple causes, this causal link remains a significant stumbling block. The subdistrict court judge demonstrates that other circumstances, such as medical issues or events in the private sphere, are also taken into account in the assessment.
The ruling is significant for employers as it confirms that not every labour dispute, negative appraisal or perceived unsafe working situation automatically leads to liability. Proof of a work-related cause remains an essential requirement.
Do you have any questions about when there is a causal link, a duty of care or employer liability? Please feel free to contact the employment lawyers at SPEE advocaten & mediation. We would be happy to discuss this with you.