Taking action against damage to employer reputation

These agreements often also stipulate that neither party will speak negatively about the other. Employers aim to protect trade secrets and safeguard their reputation—even after the employment relationship ends. Even without such explicit agreements, principles of good employment practices apply during and after the employment term.

Recent rulings

Recent court cases highlight that employers can take firm action against former employees who damage their reputation or that of their employees through social media. Remedies include injunctions, damages, penalties, and fines. This article provides an overview of these cases and practical tips for employers.

Injunctions against negative statements and contact

In a ruling by the Utrecht Subdistrict Court on June 12, 2024, a former employee violated a termination agreement by making harmful comments about their former employer. The court interpreted the agreement broadly, concluding that negative remarks about former colleagues still employed by the company also violated the agreement.

The court prohibited the former employee from making further negative statements or contacting the former colleagues, imposing a penalty for violations. The court emphasized the employer’s post-employment duty to protect employees from the fallout of terminated employment relationships. Persistently contacting someone against their will constitutes an infringement on privacy and is unlawful.

Balancing privacy and free speech

The Rotterdam Subdistrict Court ruled on a case involving a former Stedin employee whose temporary contract was not renewed. The employee published accusations on their website, including claims of fraud, bullying, and misconduct by their former employer and colleagues. Stedin argued these publications harmed its current employees and sought legal recourse under article 7:611 BW, invoking the principle of good employee conduct.

The court weighed the former employee’s right to free speech against the privacy rights of Stedin’s employees. The court ruled in favor of Stedin, finding that the publications were not journalistic but vengeful and therefore not protected under free speech. The court ordered the removal of the articles, a public retraction, and imposed fines for non-compliance.

Excessive correspondence as unlawful conduct

In another case, the Haarlem Subdistrict Court ruled against a former municipal employee who inundated the municipality and its employees with emails, complaints, and public information requests out of spite. The threatening tone and volume of correspondence led the court to conclude that the employee acted unlawfully under article 6:162 BW.

The court prohibited the former employee from making threatening or defamatory statements about the municipality or its employees.

How can employers respond?

Employers have various options to address inappropriate behavior by former employees and protect their current workforce:

• Confidentiality clauses: Include confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in employment and termination agreements, extending beyond the employment term.
• Penalties for violations: Attach penalty clauses to these agreements to deter breaches.
• Criminal complaints: Consider filing complaints for threats, defamation, or blackmail, depending on the nature of the conduct (as in the Stedin case).
• Civil proceedings: Employers can file civil claims, including for retractions, damages, penalties, and injunctions to prevent further harmful actions.

More information

Do you have questions about this article or need advice in a similar case? Feel free to contact us for assistance.