22 October 2026
Do racist messages in a private group chat with colleagues justify summary dismissal? The Hague Court of Appeal held that they did not, and criticised the employer for the process it had followed.
A technician who had worked for Air Products for more than twenty years shared racist images in a closed group chat of around seventeen (former) colleagues, including an image featuring a swastika. One colleague responded: “I don’t think this is normal.” Following complaints, he was summarily dismissed in July 2020.
The subdistrict court judge overturned the summary dismissal and ordered Air Products to allow the employee back to work. Air Products refused, even after a second order to the same effect in interim relief proceedings.
The court was clear about the messages: they were blatantly discriminatory, fascist and racist. Even in a group chat that is not work-related, messages like these cross the line if they make colleagues feel unsafe in the workplace.
Nevertheless, summary dismissal was too severe. The employee had performed well for twenty years. He had never received a warning and, apart from that one reaction in the chat, had never been confronted about his behaviour. The consequences also weighed in his favour: he was not entitled to unemployment benefits (WW), had limited prospects on the labour market and was the breadwinner for his family.
The culture within the group was another weighty factor. According to the court, discriminatory and sexist messages were the order of the day. Colleagues who had behaved in the same way received a lighter sanction. Nor did the code of conduct state that a breach would always lead to summary dismissal. In the court’s view, a firm warning and a conversation with the group would have been more appropriate.
The court also rejected dissolution on the grounds of culpable conduct by the employee (the so-called ‘e-ground’). Unlike the subdistrict court judge, however, it did find that the employment relationship had by then become seriously and permanently disrupted (the ‘g-ground’). It therefore ruled that the employment contract would end on 1 October 2021. Air Products was itself partly responsible for that disruption. It had wrongly dismissed the employee summarily and then refused to let him return to work, despite having been ordered to do so by the subdistrict court judge. The court described this as seriously culpable.
The employee received the statutory transition payment of just over €42,000 gross. Because the termination of the employment contract resulted from seriously culpable conduct on the part of the employer, he was also released from his non-compete clause.
The court rejected the claim for fair compensation (billijke vergoeding). The employee had himself contributed to a significant extent to the end of his employment. His loss of income was expected to be limited, as he had good prospects of finding work with a competitor. And he had already received €50,000 in forfeited penalty payments.
Several lessons can be drawn from this case for employers. A code of conduct does not automatically turn a breach into an urgent reason for summary dismissal. Employers must also enforce their rules consistently. If one employee is dismissed while another receives a light sanction, that difference needs to be properly explained. Where an undesirable culture has been allowed to persist for a long time, a clear line should first be drawn, for example by issuing a warning. And never ignore a court ruling: in this case, doing so cost Air Products €50,000, its non-compete clause and the label ‘seriously culpable’.
For employees, the reverse applies: a private group chat is no safe haven, and getting a summary dismissal overturned is no guarantee of keeping your job.
If you have a question about this topic or other employment law related questions, please feel free to contact us.
The Hague Court of Appeal, 31 August 2021, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2021:1575
