Case of the Month –Summary dismissal after Hyrox

An employee reports sick from work due to, among other things, severe fatigue. Two weeks later, she decides to participate in a Hyrox event. For the employer, this constitutes a clear breach of trust, and the employee is dismissed with immediate effect. The employee subsequently takes the matter to court. It is then for the court of Tilburg to determine whether the dismissal was legally valid.

The facts
In this case, the employee reported sick on 10 February 2026, citing, among other things, tensions she was experiencing in the employment relationship. On 13 March 2026, her manager received a message stating that she had glandular fever, as a result of which even minor physical exertion left her tired and she slept a lot during the day. Much to the employer’s surprise, two weeks after this message, on 27 March 2026, she completed a Hyrox event. The employer confronted her about this on 2 April, to which her only response was: “exercise is healthy.” The following day, on 3 April, the employer summarily dismissed her.

The court’s judgment
The court ruled that the dismissal was legally valid and that the employer had sufficient grounds to dismiss the employee with immediate effect. The employee disputed that there was an urgent cause for dismissal and argued, among other things, that it was not for the employer to assess her incapacity for work and that the employer had effectively assumed the role of the company doctor.

Following the discussion between the parties on 2 April 2026, the employer concluded that the employee had misled it by presenting an inaccurate picture of her capacity for work and incapacity for work, and that she had failed to comply with her obligation to act as a good employee. The court considered it relevant that, following previous tensions, the parties had already discussed rebuilding trust in the employment relationship. The employer had also accommodated the employee on several occasions in combining her work schedule with her personal circumstances. In light of the employer’s previous attempts to restore trust in the employment relationship, the court considered it understandable that the employer lost all confidence in continuing the employment relationship after learning that the employee had participated in a Hyrox event only two weeks after stating that glandular fever left her too fatigued to work.

The court did, however, rule that the employer was required to pay the employee the statutory transition payment. The court noted that the existence of an urgent cause for dismissal does not automatically mean that the dismissal resulted from seriously culpable acts or omissions on the part of the employee. It should therefore not be assumed too readily that an employee is no longer entitled to a transition payment.

The lesson for employers
This case was not about whether an employee on sick leave was permitted to participate in a Hyrox event. Rather, it concerned the discrepancy between the employee’s description of her medical condition and very limited capacity for exertion, on the one hand, and her participation in a highly intensive sporting event, on the other. Summary dismissal is a severe measure, and its validity depends entirely on the circumstances of the individual case. Employers should avoid effectively assuming the role of the company doctor by making their own assessment of what an employee is or is not physically capable of doing. However, employers should carefully document employees’ statements, the relevant facts and their conduct during sick leave. If an employee’s conduct appears inconsistent with previous statements, the employer should confront the employee and give them an opportunity to explain. In this case, the discussion the employer had with the employee, followed by the dismissal the next day, proved significant to the employer’s position.