Burnout from Work Pressure: When Is an Employer Liable?
No liability for burnout without proven harmful conditions
On 19 December 2023, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on a case in which an employee held her former employer liable for damages resulting from burnout and depression, claiming a breach of the employer's duty of care. The employee stated she had worked under unsafe conditions for a long period, feeling intimidated, humiliated, and bullied by a supervisor. However, the court found that the employer was not liable in this case.
Employee must prove: what qualifies as harmful working conditions?
According to the court, it is up to the employee to demonstrate that the working conditions caused harm to her health. In this case, she failed to do so. The employee pointed to six incidents involving her supervisor, which she experienced as intimidating, humiliating, and harmful. One such example was a conversation after working hours in which she felt pressured to relay changes in the reporting structure to her team.
She also mentioned interference with her responsibilities, controlling communication, and feeling sidelined. However, the court concluded that these events were not objectively severe enough to qualify as bullying or intimidation. They were considered workplace disagreements and tensions without coercion, aggression, or sustained inappropriate behavior.
The takeaway: an employee’s subjective experience of an unsafe work environment is not sufficient. There must be demonstrable, objectively harmful working conditions that exceed ordinary workplace stress or conflict.
No breach of employer’s duty of care
The employer, Samsung, had implemented policies on undesirable behavior and had a complaint procedure in place, including access to a counselor and a confidential adviser. When the employee filed a formal complaint, the company responded within weeks, explained the process, held discussions, and requested written statements.
The court ruled that Samsung had adequately fulfilled its duty of care under Article 7:658 of the Dutch Civil Code. Even the reintegration process and the handling of a dispute over the employee’s status as a cross-border worker (as she lived in Belgium) were deemed sufficiently careful to avoid liability.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling reinforces that an employer is only liable for psychological harm if three conditions are met:
The working conditions must be objectively harmful
There must be a causal link between those conditions and the employee's complaints
The employer must have failed in its duty of care
In this case, none of the conditions were met. Employers are therefore not automatically liable for psychological harm. Nonetheless, they should always maintain a clear complaints policy, ensure a safe working environment, and act carefully when dealing with signs of conflict or employee absence.
Supreme Court confirms the judgment
The Amsterdam court’s ruling and its confirmation by the Supreme Court on 28 March 2025 make it clear: employers are not always liable for psychological harm such as burnout. In the case against Samsung, the courts found that the employee had not sufficiently proven that she worked in objectively harmful conditions, despite her personal feelings of distress. Her offer to provide further evidence was also rejected, as it was deemed too vague.
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, confirming that judges may set high standards for both proving a breach of duty of care and for the employee’s offer of evidence. A general claim of work pressure or a negative work atmosphere is not enough.
Conclusion
Employees must thoroughly document complaints, confirm discussions in writing, and clearly substantiate where the employer may have fallen short.
For employers, the key lies in prevention and diligence. Take warning signs seriously, promote a manageable workload, ensure access to support services, and maintain proper records. A solid risk assessment, a well-maintained HR file, and proactive communication can be decisive in any legal dispute.
The ruling by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal sets an important precedent. Not every burnout leads to employer liability. But prevention is better than cure: take complaints seriously, document carefully, and foster a healthy workplace culture.
This blog was written by Mr. Stijn Blom
Employment law attorney at expatlawyer.nl B.V. Stijn has extensive experience in employment law and supports entrepreneurs on a daily basis with a wide range of employment law issues. From dismissal cases to drafting watertight agreements and regulations – with his practical and personal approach, he helps employers and employees move forward. Want to know more? Visit Stijn’s page.
Expatlawyer.nl is happy to think along with you if you have questions about the topic of your employer’s duties. Feel free to get in touch.
June 2025
