Employment discrimination in the Netherlands: the legal framework

Discrimination at work is prohibited in the Netherlands, but not by one single statute. The rules are spread over the Constitution, four equal treatment acts, several articles in the Civil Code and one in the Criminal Code, each covering different grounds and each with its own exceptions. The most important exception to what people expect: there is no administrative fine for discrimination itself, so enforcement runs through the employee, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights and the courts.

This page sets out which rule applies to which ground, who has to prove what, where a complaint goes, and which deadlines end a claim.

Is there a fine for workplace discrimination?

No. The Netherlands Labour Authority (Nederlandse Arbeidsinspectie) does not impose a fine for the discrimination itself. This is the most common misunderstanding about Dutch equal treatment law.

What the Labour Authority can enforce is a separate duty under working conditions law: the employer must pursue a policy against psychosocial workload, and discrimination forms part of that. That is a duty to have and apply a policy, not a sanction for an individual decision. The discrimination itself is enforced by the employee, through the courts, with the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens) as a free intermediate step.

Which law applies to which ground?

Each protected ground has its own statute or Civil Code article. Article 1 of the Constitution states the principle: equal cases are to be treated equally, and discrimination on any ground whatsoever is not permitted. It binds the legislature rather than the individual employer. In an employment dispute, you rely on the acts that work the principle out.

The grounds are closed lists. That matters in practice. A refusal based on something that is not on any list, such as a hobby, a postcode or a personality test result, is not discrimination in the legal sense, however unfair it feels. It may still breach the employer’s duty to act as a good employer, which is a separate route.

Which decisions and which people are covered?

The acts cover the whole working relationship. Recruitment and the job advertisement, the offer, terms of employment and pay, training, promotion, the way work is allocated, and termination all fall within their scope. They also protect people who are not employees in the strict sense: applicants, agency workers and, for several grounds, self-employed people working under a contract for services.

What is the difference between direct and indirect discrimination?

Direct discrimination can only be justified where the statute itself allows it. Indirect discrimination can be justified if there is a legitimate aim and the means are appropriate and necessary.

Direct discrimination is a distinction made because of the protected ground itself: not hiring someone because she is pregnant, or setting a maximum age for a vacancy. A business argument does not save it. It is permitted only where the statute provides an exception, for example a genuine occupational requirement, a measure of positive action, or one of the specific exceptions the Age Discrimination Act makes for state pension age and for employment policy objectives.

Indirect discrimination is a neutral rule that disadvantages one group disproportionately. Think of a requirement of flawless Dutch for a job that does not need it, a shift pattern that in practice excludes part-timers, or a rule that only full-time employees qualify for a bonus. Such a rule is allowed only if it is objectively justified: the aim must be legitimate, and the means must be appropriate and necessary. Necessity is where employers usually fail. If the aim can be achieved in a way that disadvantages fewer people, the rule does not survive.

Does harassment count as discrimination?

Yes, if it is connected to a protected ground. Unwanted conduct linked to a protected ground that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment, is treated by the equal treatment acts as a form of discrimination. Conduct that is not tied to a protected ground falls under working conditions law and the duty of good employership instead. We cover the practical side in our guide on harassment and inappropriate conduct at work.

How is pregnancy discrimination treated?

A distinction because of pregnancy, childbirth or maternity is direct discrimination on grounds of sex. No business argument can justify it.

This applies to the decision not to hire, the decision not to extend a fixed-term contract, the allocation of work on return, and selection for redundancy.

Two rules sit alongside it. First, article 7:670 of the Civil Code prohibits termination during pregnancy and during maternity leave, and for six weeks after the employee resumes work following that leave. Second, where a fixed-term contract simply expires, there is no dismissal to challenge. The decision not to renew can still be discrimination, and the employee can claim compensation on that basis.

The evidence usually lies in the timing. The moment the employer learned of the pregnancy, and what changed after that moment, is the pattern a court looks for.

What must an employer do for an employee with a disability or chronic illness?

The employer must make effective accommodations, unless they would impose a disproportionate burden. Refusing a required accommodation is itself prohibited discrimination.

The Equal Treatment (Disability or Chronic Illness) Act does more than prohibit a distinction. It obliges the employer to make effective accommodations (doeltreffende aanpassingen) where an employee or an applicant needs them to work. Failing to make an accommodation that is required counts as a prohibited distinction, not as a separate and lesser omission.

What counts as an accommodation is assessed case by case and is often modest: adjusted hours or a different shift pattern, screen-reading software, an adapted workstation, a phased return after illness, or a change in how tasks are allocated within a team. Where the employee is on long-term sick leave, this duty runs alongside the statutory reintegration obligations, which we set out in our guide on the reintegration plan.

Whether the burden is disproportionate depends on the size and resources of the employer, the cost of the measure and whether financial support is available for it. A small employer is not held to the standard of a large one, but cost alone rarely decides the question.

Two practical points follow. The duty is triggered by a request, so the employee has to ask, preferably in writing so that the date is fixed. And the employer must respond substantively. An accommodation refused without any assessment of its feasibility and cost is hard to defend once the burden of proof shifts, because there is nothing on the file to justify the refusal.

What does the law require in recruitment and selection today?

A job advertisement may not express a preference that excludes candidates on a protected ground. The selection process may not do indirectly what the advertisement may not do directly. That has been settled law for decades.

What does not exist, contrary to what is often written, is a general statutory duty to have a documented, objective recruitment procedure, to run bias audits, or to give annual diversity training. The Senate rejected the bill that would have introduced supervised recruitment procedures, the Equal Opportunities in Recruitment and Selection (Supervision) Bill, on 26 March 2024. A revised private member’s bill has since been introduced. The Council of State published its advice on it on 4 May 2026. It questioned the necessity of the scheme, whether it would set a clearer standard, and the supervisory role it gives the Netherlands Labour Authority. The bill has not been adopted, so none of those duties is enforceable.

That is not a reason to skip them. Once an applicant has raised a presumption of discrimination, the employer has to disprove it. An employer with no record of the criteria, the assessments and the reasons has nothing to disprove it with. Documentation is not a compliance obligation here; it is your evidence.

Are algorithms and AI in hiring regulated?

Yes, through two separate regimes. The GDPR applies now; the main AI Act obligations for recruitment tools apply from 2 December 2027.

• Under the GDPR, a decision with legal or similarly significant effects that is based solely on automated processing is permitted only in limited cases. The candidate has a right to information about the logic involved and to human intervention. A fully automated rejection is exactly the kind of decision the rule was written for.
• The AI Act classifies systems used for recruitment, selection, promotion and termination as high-risk under Annex III. The main obligations for high-risk systems, including risk management, data governance, logging and human oversight, were postponed by the Digital Omnibus regulation and now apply from 2 December 2027. The transparency obligations of article 50, which require people to be told when they are interacting with an AI system, have applied since 2 August 2026. The prohibitions on unacceptable practices have applied since 2 February 2025 and were not postponed.

The practical consequence for employers: buying the tool does not move the risk. If a vendor’s model filters out applicants in a way that correlates with a protected ground, it is the employer who made the distinction.

What about equal pay and pay transparency?

Equal pay for equal or equivalent work already follows from the equal treatment acts and is enforceable today. What is changing is the transparency around it.

Directive (EU) 2023/970 had to be transposed by 7 June 2026. The Netherlands did not meet that date. The implementing bill, which amends the Equal Treatment of Men and Women Act, was submitted to the House of Representatives in May 2026 and has not yet been adopted. Its entry into force will be set by royal decree, possibly at different moments for different provisions, so no date can yet be relied on.

In the meantime the position is this. A directive has no horizontal direct effect, so an employee cannot invoke it directly against a private employer. The reporting duties in particular need national rules before they apply. Dutch courts must, however, interpret existing Dutch law in line with the directive, which sharpens the equal pay standard that already applies. Employees of public authorities are in a different position: they can rely on provisions that are sufficiently clear and unconditional.

We set out the substance of the new regime, including the pay gap reporting thresholds and the ban on asking applicants about their current salary, on our page about salary transparency legislation.

Who has to prove discrimination?

The burden of proof is shared, in two steps. This rule decides most cases, and it is regularly stated wrongly in both directions.

First, the employee or applicant must put forward facts that give rise to a presumption of discrimination. Not proof; facts. Then, and only then, the burden shifts: the employer must prove that it did not discriminate. If the employer cannot, the claim succeeds.

Facts that can give rise to a presumption include:

• a job advertisement with an age or language requirement that the role does not need;
• a rejection that follows shortly after the employer learns of a pregnancy;
• statistics showing that candidates of one origin never get past the first round;
• a remark made in the interview;
• a pay difference with a colleague doing equivalent work that the employer cannot explain by anything else.

What is not enough on its own is the applicant’s own belief that the real reason was discrimination, or the bare fact of belonging to a protected group combined with a rejection.

Are you protected if you complain?

Yes. An employee who raises a discrimination complaint, supports someone else’s complaint or brings proceedings may not be disadvantaged for doing so.

Article 7:647 of the Civil Code prohibits the employer from disadvantaging an employee for invoking the equal treatment rules on grounds of sex. A notice of termination given in breach of that prohibition can be annulled by the employee. Comparable victimisation provisions apply to the other grounds under the equal treatment acts and, for working hours and contract type, under articles 7:648 and 7:649 of the Civil Code.

The protection does not depend on the underlying complaint succeeding, provided it was made in good faith. That is the point of it: a right that costs the person exercising it their position is not a right. A retaliation claim follows the same two-step burden of proof as the discrimination claim. The sequence of events usually does the work, in particular anything that changed immediately after the complaint.

For an employer this is mainly a matter of procedure. Once a complaint has been made, decisions affecting the complainant should be documented against criteria that existed before it. Where possible, someone other than the person complained about should take them.

Where can you file a complaint?

Internally, with the municipal anti-discrimination service, with the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, or with the subdistrict court. There is no separate employment tribunal and no employee ombudsman in the Netherlands.

• Internally. The manager or HR, the confidential adviser if the employer has one, and the complaints procedure. The works council has a role in the policy, not in the individual case.
• The municipal anti-discrimination service. Every municipality must provide one. It is free, gives independent advice, and can help register and formulate the complaint.
• The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights. Anyone can bring a case, without a lawyer and without cost. The Institute investigates and issues a reasoned opinion on whether the equal treatment legislation has been breached. Two limits matter: the opinion is not binding, and the Institute cannot award damages or set aside a dismissal. Its weight is evidential, and a court can take it into account.
• The subdistrict court (kantonrechter). This is the route for anything that requires a binding order: annulment of a dismissal, compensation, fair compensation or back pay.
• A criminal complaint. In more serious cases, discrimination in the exercise of an office, profession or business is an offence under article 429quater of the Criminal Code. This route is used rarely, and alongside the civil claim rather than instead of it.

Which deadlines apply?

The short deadlines are in dismissal law, and they are strict.

• To ask the court to annul the notice, or to award fair compensation instead, you must apply within two months of the end of the employment contract.
• A claim for the transition payment (transitievergoeding) must be made within three months of the end of the contract.
• A claim for damages that does not depend on challenging the dismissal follows the general limitation rules. These run from the moment the claimant knows of the damage and of the liable party. If the timing is close, have it checked rather than assumed.

The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights does not apply a fixed deadline. Bringing a case there does not stop the two-month clock in dismissal cases, however. If both routes matter, the court application comes first.

What can a court order?

A court can declare the discriminatory decision void, annul a dismissal, and award damages or back pay.

• The discriminatory provision or decision is void. A clause in a contract or a scheme that breaches the equal treatment legislation has no effect.
• The dismissal can be annulled, so that the employment continues, or the court can award fair compensation instead.
• Damages, including compensation for non-material loss where dignity has been affected.
• Back pay, where a pay difference cannot be objectively justified.

What a court cannot do is impose a fine measured as a percentage of turnover. That figure comes from competition and data protection law and has no counterpart in Dutch equal treatment law. The real exposure for an employer is compensation, back pay across a group of employees where a pay or benefits scheme turns out to be discriminatory, legal costs, and the publicity of a published opinion or judgment.

How can employers reduce the risk?

By building a record. Given how the burden of proof works, the measures that help are the ones that leave a paper trail.

• Write down the requirements for a role before you see the candidates, and keep the list that was used.
• Record who applied, who was assessed, against which criteria, and why the choice fell where it did. Two lines per candidate is enough.
• Check the tools. Ask a supplier what data its model was trained on and what it optimises for, and keep the answer.
• Explain pay differences in writing at the moment they arise, not two years later when they are questioned.
• Have a complaints procedure and a confidential adviser, and make sure a complaint reaches someone who is not the person complained about.
• Treat a pregnancy notification, a request for adjustments on health grounds and a contract renewal decision as moments where the file needs to be right.

In summary

• Dutch equal treatment law works with closed lists of grounds, spread over four acts and several articles of the Civil Code.
• There is no administrative fine for discrimination; the employee enforces the rules through the Institute for Human Rights and the courts.
• Once the employee puts forward facts that suggest discrimination, the employer must prove it did not discriminate.
• Challenging a dismissal must happen within two months of the end of the contract; a case at the Institute does not stop that clock.
• For employers, documentation made at the time of the decision is the best defence.

Frequently asked questions

Unsure where you stand? Tell us about your situation. We will let you know your options within one working day.

How Law & More can help you with this is explained on our employment lawyer page.