Is an employee who attends a festival while suffering from burnout at risk of summary dismissal? The Subdistrict Court of North Holland recently considered this question. Curious to find out whether the summary dismissal was upheld?
The facts
The employee in question had been employed by an employment agency in a commercial inside sales position since 22 November 2024. On 11 December 2024, she reported sick due to burnout symptoms. She subsequently continued to receive treatment from her physician and psychologist. In January 2025, she attended a music festival with friends. It involved a few hours of attendance in the afternoon, without excessive alcohol consumption or other excesses, according to the employee. The employee further claimed that the festival visit was on the advice of her practitioner, who felt it was important for her to ‘stay among people’ as part of the recovery process.
The employer discovered the festival attendance through social media and drew the conclusion that there was simulation. According to the employer, the employee had wrongfully reported herself unfit for work and her behaviour amounted to work refusal and dereliction of duty. He decided to proceed with immediate dismissal.
The employee opposed this dismissal, arguing, among other things, that she had not reported being unfit for work because of physical limitations, but because of psychological complaints, and that she had been advised to gradually resume social activities. She claimed continued payment of her wages and liquidated damages for wrongful termination.
The judgment of the Subdistrict Court
The Subdistrict Court annulled the instant dismissal and ruled in favour of the employee. The judge considered that burnout complaints do not necessarily mean that an employee is completely condemned to social isolation. On the contrary: according to the Subdistrict Court, in the context of psychological recovery, it is important for employees to gradually participate in social or relaxing activities again, provided they do so in consultation with their doctor.
In this case, the employee had made it plausible that the festival visit took place in consultation with her psychologist and that it fitted within her reintegration programme. There was no structural or excessive partying, nor any behaviour that hindered her recovery. The Subdistrict Court also attached value to the fact that this was a one-off and limited visit, and that the employee had not previously been warned about such behaviour.
It further held that the employee's behaviour did not violate her reintegration obligations. She had not evaded monitoring or counselling, nor had she presented herself work-fit. There was no intention to mislead the employer, according to the Subdistrict Court.
Finally, in the judge's opinion, there was no urgent cause within the meaning of Section 7:678 of the Civil Code. The circumstances, viewed neither individually nor together, provided a situation in which the employer could not reasonably be required to continue the employment contract. The court therefore awarded the overdue salary as well as liquidated damages pursuant to Section 7:677(4) of the Civil Code.
Read the full decision here .
Contemplation
This ruling shows the importance of applying tailor-made legal assessment in cases of psychological absenteeism. Not every social activity conflicts with the illness or recovery. Especially with burnout complaints, social stimuli - if dosed and in consultation with a practitioner - can actually contribute to reintegration. Employers would do well to carefully assess whether there is work refusal, simulation or recovery impediment before proceeding with dismissal.
This case also confirms once again that there are high requirements for a valid instant dismissal. The conduct must be serious enough and there must be a careful weighing up of interests. In this case, those high requirements were not met, partly because the employee's behaviour was not disproportionate, not structural, and was even deemed to be conducive to recovery, the subdistrict court ruled.
Conclusion
An employee with psychological absenteeism may, within limits, participate in social activities. This case makes it clear that attending a festival or other social activities, is not necessarily impermissible, especially if done in consultation with a physician. Employers would be wise to be cautious about imposing severe sanctions such as summary dismissal, and first carefully assess (or have assessed) the employee's individual situation. The employment lawyers at SPEE advocaten & mediation will be happy to assist you.