On 23 June 2026, The Hague District Court handed down an interesting ruling on the relationship between employment law and the protection afforded to employees with a disability under the Equal Treatment Act on the Grounds of Disability or Chronic Illness (Wgbh/cz). Although several colleagues had complained about inappropriate behaviour on the part of an employee with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the subdistrict court judge rejected the employer’s request to terminate the employment contract.
It follows from the judgement that an employer wishing to dismiss an employee with a disability on the grounds of behavioural problems cannot simply rely on the argument that the employment relationship has been disrupted. It must first be demonstrated that the obligations arising from the Wgbh/cz have been met, including making reasonable adjustments and seriously exploring redeployment options.
The facts
The employee had been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Over time, several reports had been made within the team regarding behaviour that colleagues perceived as inappropriate. According to the employer, the employee struggled to understand social dynamics, regularly overstepped personal boundaries and lacked sufficient insight into how his behaviour was perceived by others. This was said to have created an unworkable situation.
To improve collaboration, the employer had taken various measures. The employee had received individual coaching, and support had also been provided within the team. In addition, the employer had issued the employee with a formal reprimand. However, during the proceedings, it was established that this reprimand had, in hindsight, been imposed unjustly, thereby diminishing the significance of a key part of the case file compiled by the employer.
It also emerged that the employer had since agreed to an arrangement whereby the employee worked largely from home and that team coaching had also taken place. Furthermore, it was of decisive importance that no new incidents had occurred in the workplace since December 2024.
Nevertheless, the employer argued that the employment relationship had been permanently disrupted and that it could no longer be expected to continue the employment contract.
The Wgbh/cz imposes an active obligation on employers
The subdistrict court judge first held that an autism spectrum disorder can be classified as a disability within the meaning of the Wgbh/cz. This is of great legal significance. Under Article 2 of the Wgbh/cz, an employer is obliged – unless this would impose a disproportionate burden – to make effective adjustments that enable an employee to continue performing their duties.
This obligation goes beyond offering one-off support or coaching. An employer may be expected to actively investigate which organisational or practical measures could reasonably contribute to the long-term continuation of the employment relationship.
According to the subdistrict court judge, the employer had failed to demonstrate sufficiently that those options had in fact been exhausted.
The request for termination was indirectly linked to the disability
A key aspect of the ruling is that the employment tribunal judge explicitly addressed the grounds for the request for termination.
Among other things, the employer criticised the employee for lacking sufficient understanding of how his behaviour was perceived by colleagues. However, it is precisely this limited social awareness that can be characteristic of an autism spectrum disorder. In the subdistrict court’s view, the request for termination was therefore indirectly linked to the employee’s disability.
This does not mean that an employee with autism cannot be held accountable for their behaviour. It does, however, mean that an employer cannot simply base a request for termination on characteristics that stem directly from the disability without first demonstrating which reasonable adjustments have been explored and why these have proved insufficiently effective.
Insufficient evidence of a permanently unworkable situation
The court considered it significant that various adjustments had since been implemented. The employee was working largely from home, the team had received coaching, and no new incidents had occurred for some time. In those circumstances, it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that the working relationship was permanently unworkable.
It is also noteworthy that the subdistrict court judge considered that colleagues may be expected to take the limitations of an employee with a disability into account to a certain extent. This does not, of course, mean that inappropriate behaviour must be accepted or that safety in the workplace may be compromised. However, an inclusive working environment does mean that not every communication problem or social awkwardness automatically justifies termination of employment.
The obligation to redeploy also carries greater weight
In addition, the employment tribunal judge ruled that the employer had failed to adequately fulfil the obligation to redeploy as referred to in Article 7:669 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Particularly in the case of an employee with a disability, an employer may be expected to seriously investigate whether redeployment – possibly in an adapted form, with modified duties or under different circumstances – is possible. The employer had failed to provide sufficient justification as to why such possibilities were lacking.
For this reason too, the application for termination could not be upheld.
What does this ruling mean in practice?
This ruling confirms that the Wgbh/cz plays a vital role in dismissal cases where behavioural problems are linked to a disability or chronic illness. In such cases, an employer must be able to demonstrate carefully that they have not only responded to the problems that have arisen, but have also actively sought solutions that enable the employee to continue their work.
For employers, this means that a carefully compiled file is insufficient on its own if it primarily describes the employee’s behaviour. At least as important is the question of what support was offered, what reasonable adjustments were explored, what effect these had, and why, ultimately, there was no longer any realistic possibility of continuing the employment relationship.
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:17844
Conclusion
The judgment of The Hague District Court is part of a broader trend in which judges rigorously assess whether employers have actually fulfilled their obligations under the Wgbh/cz before terminating an employment contract. This applies in particular where the alleged behavioural problems are closely linked to a disability.
For employers, this is a clear warning: a request for termination will only stand a chance of success if there is not only a carefully compiled personnel file, but it can also be convincingly demonstrated that all reasonable adjustments have been explored, implemented and evaluated, and that redeployment no longer reasonably offers a solution.
It is precisely in this area of tension between good employment practices, equal treatment and dismissal law that careful legal assessment is essential.
Do you have any questions or need advice? The employment lawyers at SPEE advocaten & mediation would be happy to discuss this with you.
𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘚𝘱𝘦𝘦, 𝘓𝘓.𝘔., 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳, 𝘔fN-𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳