Employers’ liability for a burnout?

9 December 2024

Employers’ liability for a burnout?

By Anja Blijham

Small mistakes can have large consequences. The same applies at work: employers’ liability is easily on the cards. Excessive work pressure, inhalation of hazardous substances or physical overload.

There are various ways employees can suffer injuries during working hours. What happens if an employee holds you liable for a burnout?

Duty of care

As an employer, you have a duty to ensure a safe working environment. Failure to do so could result in employers’ liability. This follows from Article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek). Employers must try to prevent the onset of physical and mental complaints and protect employees’ safety and health. Case law has now clarified that this includes preventing burnouts. This is because the employer determines where, under what conditions and with what tools the employee performs his work. The fact that this results in psychological rather than physical complaints makes no difference to this.

Good employment practices

Under Article 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code, the employer may also be liable for the harm done to the employee. On this basis, the employer and the employee are required to act as a reasonable and fair employer and employee. If the employer fails to fulfil this obligation and the employee suffers harm as a result, this may result in employers’ liability. Burnouts fall under harm within the meaning of Article 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code.

Burnout: entitled to compensation?

The fact that an employee suffers a burnout is insufficient for the existence of employers’ liability. Several requirements must be met before employer’s liability is assumed. There must be harm: namely, a burnout diagnosed by a doctor. In addition, the burnout must have been suffered by the employee while performing his work for the employer. The employee must provide proof of this. This connection is often difficult to prove; after all, a burnout can have multiple causes, which cannot be medically objectively identified. The employee must therefore present evidence of ‘systematic and significant excessive workload’. An example is structurally having to work overtime or receive assignments while the employee is ill at home.

If the employer subsequently proves that it has properly fulfilled its duty of care, it will not be liable for any harm the employee claims to suffer. This also means that an employee is required to complain to the employer about a potentially excessive workload. In this regard, an active attitude of the employee is expected. It is only when the employer is at fault that liability may be assumed. If the employer can prove that gross negligence on the part of the employee caused the burnout, it will not be liable for the employee’s burnout.

Preventing employers’ liability for a burnout

The above means that an employer must take reasonable measures to ensure that an employee is not harmed while working. Here are some practical tips to encourage a healthy work environment and prevent employee burnout:

  • Ensure a good work-life balance: encourage employees to take adequate rest and make good use of their free time.
  • Offer opportunities for development: give employees the chance to grow and develop in order to stay motivated.
  • Promote a healthy work culture: encourage teamwork, recognise achievements and create a positive atmosphere in the workplace.
  • Provide flexible working hours and working from home options: give employees the flexibility to arrange work in their own way.
  • Encourage breaks and relaxation: ensure employees take regular breaks and encourage stress-reducing activities during working hours.

More information

Is an employee holding you liable as an employer for a burnout or personal injury in general and would you like assistance from a specialised lawyer? Please do not hesitate to contact us!

Related blogs

Previous slide
Next slide

17 September 2026

Dismissal for lying about working from home

Incorrectly registering a workplace can constitute an urgent reason for summary dismissal. The Rotterdam District Court recently confirmed this in a judgment. The case concerned an employee of online bank Bunq. Over a period of three months, the employee stated 21 times that he was working from the office in Rotterdam, while other data showed that he was not at the office.

Read more

Read more about

3 September 2026

Employer, may I move to a competitor?

Many employers include a non-compete and/or non-solicitation clause in their employment contracts. If an employee wants to work for a client or a competitor of the employer, and the employer does not allow this, the employee may feel compelled to take the matter to court. That was also the case in a ruling by the Zeeland-West Brabant Subdistrict Court in May 2025.

Read more

Read more about

27 August 2026

Works council and right of consent for changes to home working policy

Around the summer of 2025, two judgments were published on a highly topical issue: changes to home working policy. From the United States, a trend seems to be spreading to the Netherlands in which companies are trying to force employees to work from the office more often, or even full-time.

Read more

Read more about

13 August 2026

New Act on Transfer of Undertakings in Bankruptcy (WOVOF): consequences for employees and restart entrepreneurs

Some time ago, a blog was published on our website about the protection of employees in a restart following bankruptcy. It was relevant then and remains a topical issue now, as the Act on the Transfer of Undertakings in Bankruptcy (Wet Overgang van Onderneming in Faillissement, WOVOF) is approaching.

Read more

Read more about

16 July 2026

Love in the workplace: employment law considerations

Cupid does not let his arrows be guided by HR policies. That situations of love at the work place do not always come without consequences became clear again after the Coldplay concert end of 2025.

Read more

Read more about
All articles