A single remark in the workplace \u2013 or outside it \u2013 can have major consequences. Certainly at a time when employers are keeping a close eye on inappropriate behaviour, summary dismissal is sometimes quickly on the table. The question, however, is whether every misstep actually crosses that line. In a recent ruling by the Amsterdam District Court on 24 March 2026, that line is drawn very clearly.<\/p>\n
Facts and background<\/strong><\/p>\n The employee in question was employed by Tesla and attended a company drinks party, a setting which, whilst informal, is undeniably work-related. During this gathering, a group photo was taken. At that moment, the employee shouted \u201cdicks out\u201d, an expression which, in the given context, was perceived as sexually suggestive and inappropriate.<\/p>\n The behaviour was not limited to this remark. The employee approached a female colleague, placed his hand on her shoulder and asked her which man she found most attractive. According to the employer, the employee was also heavily under the influence of alcohol at the time, which is said to have contributed to and exacerbated the behaviour.<\/p>\n The organisation had a zero-tolerance policy regarding inappropriate behaviour. Against this background, the employer decided almost immediately to dismiss the employee with immediate effect. The employee contested this, arguing that whilst his behaviour was indeed unfortunate and inappropriate, it was not so serious as to justify the most severe sanction. He also disputed that there had been severe alcohol intoxication.<\/p>\n Legal framework<\/strong><\/p>\n For a dismissal on the spot to be legally valid, there must be an urgent reason within the meaning of Section 7:678 of the Dutch Civil Code. This means that the conduct must be so serious that the employer cannot reasonably be expected to allow the employment contract to continue. In doing so, all the circumstances of the case must be taken into account, including the nature and seriousness of the conduct, the context in which it took place and the employee\u2019s personal circumstances.<\/p>\n Judgment of the Subdistrict Court<\/strong><\/p>\n The subdistrict court ruled that the summary dismissal does not stand and elaborated on this judgment on several fronts.<\/p>\n Firstly, whilst the employee\u2019s conduct is deemed inappropriate and unprofessional, it is not sufficiently serious to constitute an urgent reason. The subdistrict court emphasises that the conduct must be such as to immediately and permanently undermine the basis of trust between employer and employee. This is not the case here. The remark \u201cdicks out\u201d and the subsequent comment directed at the colleague are inappropriate, but, according to the court, fall within the category of incidents that can, in principle, be dealt with by a less far-reaching measure.<\/p>\n In addition, the subdistrict court judge explicitly takes the context of the incident into account. The behaviour took place during a company drinks party, an informal setting in which the boundaries of what is appropriate sometimes shift. This does not mean that everything is permitted, but it does mean that behaviour in that context must be assessed differently than in a formal work situation.<\/p>\n A further key element in the assessment is that it has not been established that the employee was heavily under the influence of alcohol. The employer did allege this, but failed to provide sufficient evidence. This undermines a key pillar of the argument that there was serious culpable conduct.<\/p>\n The absence of previous warnings or similar incidents also plays a role. The subdistrict court considers it significant that the employee had not previously been reprimanded for his behaviour and that there was no pattern of such conduct. It is precisely in such cases that an employer may be expected to opt first for a less severe sanction, such as a warning.<\/p>\n The subdistrict court judge also makes it clear that the proportionality test is central. Summary dismissal is the most severe sanction in employment law and requires that less far-reaching measures are insufficient. In this case, given the nature and seriousness of the conduct, the employer should have considered whether a less drastic measure was appropriate. That did not happen.<\/p>\n