law<\/a>. Nevertheless, recent case law shows that religious discrimination still occurs in the workplace. Employees who are confronted with this can be awarded substantial damages amounting to tens of thousands of pounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIn this comprehensive article, we guide you through the legal landscape of religious discrimination in the workplace. We discuss the legal framework, analyse important court cases from 2025, explain how the amount of compensation is determined, and offer practical guidance for both employers and employees. Whether you are an employee wondering if you are experiencing discrimination, an employer who wants to avoid risks, an HR professional, or a legal advisor, this article provides the knowledge you need.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal Framework: A Strong Safety Net<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Netherlands has developed a comprehensive legal framework to protect employees from discrimination based on religion or belief. This safety net consists of multiple layers: from constitutional guarantees to specific labour legislation and general civil law provisions. Let’s examine these layers one by one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Constitutional Protection: Article 1 of the Constitution<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution forms the foundation of all anti-discrimination legislation in our country. This constitutional guarantee states: “All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in similar circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This article has special legal force. It not only binds the government, but also extends to private law relationships such as employment contracts. Although citizens cannot invoke the article directly against other citizens, it does form the basis for all specific anti-discrimination legislation. Judges regularly refer to Article 1 of the Constitution as the foundation for their decisions in discrimination cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
General Equal Treatment Act (AWGB): Specific Protection under Labour Law<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The AWGB, which came into force in 1994, offers targeted protection against discrimination in various areas of society, including the labour market. The following provisions are crucial for employees who face religious discrimination:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article 1 AWGB – Definition of prohibited discrimination<\/strong>
This article defines what is meant by discrimination. It distinguishes between direct discrimination (literal unequal treatment) and indirect discrimination (seemingly neutral rules that in practice disadvantage certain groups). It is important to note that in the case of indirect discrimination, objective justification is possible – employers can demonstrate that the discrimination is necessary and proportionate for a legitimate purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\nArticle 7 AWGB – Prohibition of discrimination in employment<\/strong>
This article explicitly prohibits discrimination in all phases of the employment relationship: from the recruitment process to the end of the employment contract. The prohibition applies to discrimination in recruitment, selection, terms of employment, job assignment, promotion and dismissal. This means that an employer may not only make discriminatory decisions, but also ask discriminatory questions during job interviews.<\/p>\n\n\n\nArticle 8 AWGB – Right to compensation<\/strong>
This crucial article regulates the right to compensation in the event of a violation of the prohibition of discrimination. It states that anyone who suffers damage as a result of discrimination is entitled to compensation for that damage. This includes both material damage (e.g. lost income) and immaterial damage (e.g. mental suffering). The article often forms the legal basis for claims in discrimination cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCivil Code: Additional Protection and Procedures<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In addition to the AWGB, the Civil Code (BW) offers additional protection specifically tailored to employment relationships:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article 7:646 BW – Prohibition of discrimination and burden of proof<\/strong>
This article is a game-changer for employees who suspect discrimination. It explicitly prohibits discrimination in the employment relationship and contains an important reversal of the burden of proof. Normally, the person making an allegation must also prove it. But in cases of discrimination, the employee only has to present facts that could give rise to a suspicion of discrimination. Once that has been done, the employer must prove that there was no discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\nFurthermore, this article protects employees who file complaints against reprisals. Paragraph 5 stipulates that an employer may not discriminate on the basis of the fact that an employee has filed a discrimination complaint. This prevents employees from remaining silent about discrimination for fear of retaliation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Articles 7:681 and 7:682 of the Civil Code – Termination and fair compensation<\/strong>
These articles regulate the termination of employment contracts by the court. Article 7:681 states that no severance pay needs to be paid in the event of termination if there is a serious reason. Article 7:682, on the other hand, stipulates that fair compensation may be awarded in the event of serious culpable conduct on the part of the employer. This is often applied in discrimination cases: discriminatory dismissal is considered seriously culpable, entitling the employee to compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\nArticle 6:106 of the Civil Code – Non-material damages<\/strong>
This article regulates compensation for ‘damage to the person’. This means that someone who suffers non-financial damage (such as psychological injury, damage to honour or reputation) can be compensated for this. In discrimination cases, this article is relevant when, for example, the employee becomes depressed, experiences stress or otherwise suffers psychological damage as a result of the discrimination. The compensation is determined “in accordance with equity” – the court weighs all the circumstances to arrive at a reasonable compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe interplay of the various laws<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
These various legal provisions work together to provide a solid safety net. An employee can rely on the AWGB to establish discrimination, on Article 7:646 of the Civil Code for the favourable distribution of the burden of proof, on Article 7:682 of the Civil Code for fair compensation for seriously culpable dismissal, and on Article 6:106 of the Civil Code for compensation for immaterial damage. Judges often apply these provisions in combination to achieve full compensation for the employee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Relevant case law: Case law that sets limits<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Laws are important, but it is mainly court cases that show how these laws are applied in practice. In recent years, Dutch case law has made important rulings that clarify where the boundaries lie. Let us take a closer look at three categories of cases that provide insight into how judges deal with religious discrimination in the workplace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Probationary dismissal due to religious custom: The Handshake case<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Case: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:19487 – District Court of The Hague<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThis ruling received a lot of attention because it concerns a practical situation that occurs regularly in various forms. An employee with an Islamic background worked in a position that involved frequent contact with the public. Due to his religious beliefs, he did not shake hands with persons of the opposite sex, something he had made clear at the start of his employment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After a few weeks, the employee received a letter of dismissal stating that he had failed his probationary period. The employer gave as the reason that not shaking hands was not appropriate for the position, in which customer contact was essential. The employer argued that customers might feel hurt or rejected as a result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court’s consideration<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe District Court of The Hague had to answer the following question: Is refusing to shake hands for religious reasons sufficient grounds for dismissal, or is this discrimination?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court ruled clearly: this was indirect discrimination based on religion. Why indirect? Because the employer did not say “we are dismissing you because you are Muslim” (which would be direct discrimination), but did impose a condition (shaking hands) that specifically affects this group of employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In cases of indirect discrimination, an employer may invoke objective justification. The employer must then demonstrate that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- The discrimination serves a legitimate purpose<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The discrimination is appropriate for achieving that aim<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The discrimination is necessary (there are no less restrictive alternatives)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The discrimination is proportionate (the disadvantages do not outweigh the advantages)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
The court ruled that the employer had failed to do so. Yes, good customer relations are important. But are they so important that religious beliefs must be set aside? And were there no alternatives, such as instructing the employee to explain why he does not shake hands and to use another, respectful greeting?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judge’s answer was clear: the employer’s interests did not outweigh the employee’s fundamental right to equal treatment and freedom of religion. The dismissal was discriminatory and seriously culpable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The compensation awarded: \u20ac34,000 gross<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe court awarded fair compensation of \u20ac34,000 gross. This relatively high compensation was justified by:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- The seriousness of the discrimination (dismissal during the probationary period sends a signal that religious employees are not welcome)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The loss of income suffered by the employee<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The fact that the employer did not attempt to reach a reasonable solution<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The need to have a deterrent effect (to prevent employers from dismissing religious employees lightly)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Dismissal Related to Religious Beliefs: Praying at Work<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Case: ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:11085 – District Court of North Holland<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThis case concerned an employee who had been employed for several years and whose performance had never caused any problems. The employee was a practising Muslim and at one point began using his breaks to pray. He used a quiet room in the company premises for this purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although this did not seem to cause any problems initially, after a few months the employee was informed that his contract would not be renewed. Various reasons were given during the dismissal interviews, but communications and witness statements revealed that praying during working hours had played a role in the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judicial assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe North Holland District Court applied the so-called “New Hairstyle criteria” – a set of guidelines developed by the Supreme Court for determining fair compensation. The judge considered:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- The loss of income<\/strong>: How much income is the employee no longer earning as a result of the dismissal?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The length of service<\/strong>: How long had the employee been employed? (In this case, several years, which argues for higher compensation)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The likelihood of finding other work<\/strong>: How easy is it for the employee to find a new job?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The offensive nature<\/strong>: How offensive was the discrimination to the employee?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Although the employee had since found other work (which reduced the financial disadvantage), the discriminatory nature of the dismissal weighed heavily. The judge emphasised that praying during breaks is an expression of religious freedom that must be protected, and that the dismissal was therefore particularly hurtful to the employee’s personal dignity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The compensation awarded: \u20ac15,000 gross<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe court awarded fair compensation of \u20ac15,000 gross. This compensation was lower than in the handshake case, but still substantial. The judge justified this as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- The employee had since found other work, which limited the loss of income<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The discrimination was serious, but less explicit than in other cases<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The employer had not taken an openly discriminatory position, but did act in a discriminatory manner in practice<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Compensation was necessary to redress the injustice and recognise the dignity of the employee<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Non-material damage in cases of psychological injury: the long-term consequences<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
General principles: ECLI:NL:CRVB:2025:845 and ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:9594<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Central Appeals Tribunal and various courts have clarified when non-material damages are possible. The most important criterion: there must be objectively ascertainable psychological injury. This means that emotional reactions such as anger, sadness or disappointment are not sufficient in themselves – there must be actual psychological suffering that is medically or otherwise objectifiable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Examples of objective mental injury:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Depression, diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- An anxiety disorder or PTSD as a result of the discrimination<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Other mental disorders requiring treatment<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
However, the judges also emphasise that, in exceptional cases, the seriousness of the standards violation may, in itself, be sufficient to award non-material damages, even without a medical diagnosis. This applies in particular to very serious forms of discrimination that deeply affect human dignity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A serious case: ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2025:8558<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nIn this case, the Limburg District Court awarded non-material damages of no less than \u20ac75,000<\/strong>. This very high amount was justified by the fact that the employee had demonstrably suffered serious psychological injury as a direct result of the discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe employee had:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Developed depression that required treatment<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Lost his self-confidence and was unable to work for a long period of time<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Had to seek long-term psychological help<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Suffered lasting psychological complaints as a result of the experience<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The judge noted that the discrimination was particularly hurtful and that the employer showed no empathy. The fact that the employee was young and had a long future ahead of him in which he would have to live with the consequences also played a role in determining the amount of compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lessons from case law<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
These court cases reveal several important patterns:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Judges take religious discrimination seriously<\/strong>: Substantial compensation is awarded<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Objective justification is difficult<\/strong>: Employers rarely succeed in justifying indirect discrimination<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Probationary dismissal is not a free pass<\/strong>: Discrimination is not permitted during the probationary period either<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Non-material damage counts<\/strong>: Compensation can be substantial in cases of demonstrable psychological injury<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Context is important<\/strong>: Judges weigh up all circumstances, such as length of service, severity of discrimination, and consequences for the employee<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
Amount of compensation: how is it determined?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
One of the most practical questions employees and employers ask is: How much can a discrimination case cost? The answer is: it depends on many factors. Let’s examine this in detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Components of the compensation: a breakdown<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The total compensation for discrimination based on religion is usually made up of various components. Each component has its own legal basis and calculation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. Fair Compensation (Section 7:682 of the Civil Code and Section 8 of the AWGB)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
This is often the most significant component of the compensation. Fair compensation is intended to compensate the employer for its seriously culpable conduct. It is not a punishment (as in criminal law), but a way of compensating the employee for the injustice done to him or her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How is it calculated?<\/strong>
There is no fixed formula. Instead, the court weighs up all the circumstances of the case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Salary and loss of income<\/strong>: The higher the salary, the higher the compensation will usually be. This is because the loss is greater.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Length of employment<\/strong>: An employee who has been employed for ten years will usually receive higher compensation than someone who has worked for three months.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Chance of finding other work<\/strong>: Is the job market favourable for this position? How quickly can the employee find comparable work?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Severity of the discrimination<\/strong>: Was it explicit, overt discrimination or a more subtle form? How serious was it?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Age and future prospects<\/strong>: Younger employees have more years ahead of them in which they will experience the consequences.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Calculation example<\/strong>:
An employee earned \u20ac3,000 gross per month and worked for the company for five years. After being dismissed on discriminatory grounds, he found new work with a comparable salary after six months. The court may reason: “Six months of lost income = \u20ac18,000, plus compensation for the discrimination experienced = a total of \u20ac25,000 in fair compensation.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n2. Fixed compensation (Section 7:681 of the Civil Code)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
This compensation is equal to the wages the employee would have received during the notice period. The reasoning behind this is that if the employer had wanted to dismiss the employee correctly (without discrimination), they would have had to observe a notice period and pay wages during that period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How long is the notice period?<\/strong>
This depends on the length of service:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- 0-5 years of employment: 1 month’s notice period for the employer<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 5-10 years: 2 months<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 10-15 years: 3 months<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 15+ years: 4 months<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Practical example<\/strong>:
An employee with 7 years of service and a gross monthly salary of \u20ac4,000 is entitled to 2 months’ notice. Fixed compensation = 2 \u00d7 \u20ac4,000 = \u20ac8,000 gross.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPlease note: this compensation is often combined with fair compensation. Some judges combine them, while others treat fixed compensation as part of fair compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. Non-material compensation (Section 6:106 of the Civil Code)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
This is compensation for non-financial damage: psychological suffering, damage to personal dignity, stress, anxiety, and other emotional consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When is this awarded?<\/strong>
There are two routes to non-pecuniary damages:<\/p>\n\n\n\nRoute A – Objective mental injury<\/strong>:
The employee must demonstrate that he or she has actually suffered psychological injury. This can be done by:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Medical statement from a psychologist or psychiatrist (diagnosis such as depression, PTSD, anxiety disorder)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Treatment programmes and medication<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Statements from a general practitioner<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Expert reports<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Route B – Serious breach of standards<\/strong>:
In exceptional cases, the discrimination may be so serious and hurtful that the court will award compensation even without medical evidence. This occurs in cases of:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Very overt, humiliating discrimination<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Discrimination that was made public<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Particularly hurtful remarks<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Long-term, systematic discrimination<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Amount of non-material damages<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Mild psychological symptoms without treatment: \u20ac2,500 – \u20ac5,000<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Treated complaints (a few therapy sessions): \u20ac5,000 – \u20ac15,000<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Serious complaints requiring intensive treatment: \u20ac15,000 – \u20ac35,000<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Very serious, long-term psychological damage: \u20ac35,000 – \u20ac75,000+<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Points of view in determining compensation: what does the judge take into account?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Judges in the Netherlands are free to determine compensation amounts \u2013 there are no fixed tables or formulas. However, case law shows that they consistently consider certain factors:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Factor 1: Severity and culpability of the action<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
How culpable were the employer’s actions? There are degrees of culpability:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Highly culpable<\/strong> (leads to high compensation):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Employer knew that discrimination was taking place and did nothing<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Explicitly discriminatory statements<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Employer acted consciously and intentionally in a discriminatory manner<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- After confrontation, employer continued to discriminate<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Moderately culpable<\/strong> (average compensation):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Indirect discrimination without malicious intent<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Employer attempted to find a solution but failed<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Ignorance of discrimination prohibitions (but that does not absolve responsibility)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Slightly culpable<\/strong> (lower compensation, rare):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Employer acted in good faith but made a mistake<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Unforeseen circumstances<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Employer acknowledged mistake immediately and attempted to rectify it<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Factor 2: Consequences for the employee<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
What impact did the discrimination have on the employee’s life?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Financial consequences<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- How long did the unemployment last?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Did the employee have to accept a lower-paid job?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Did financial problems arise (debts, having to sell the house)?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Personal consequences<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n