Religious discrimination at work: Dutch law and compensation

In the Netherlands, your employer may not treat you less favourably because of your religion or belief, from the job interview to the dismissal. The main exception is a neutral rule that is objectively justified, and religious organisations may set requirements linked to their faith where the nature of the job makes this essential.

The protection rests on the Dutch Constitution, the Equal Treatment Act (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling, AWGB) and the Dutch Civil Code (BW). If you are dismissed because of your religion, even during a probationary period, the subdistrict court (kantonrechter) can annul the dismissal or award you fair compensation (billijke vergoeding). Below we explain the legal framework, what recent judgments show, how compensation is assessed, and what employees and employers can do in practice.

What does Dutch law say about religious discrimination at work?

Religious discrimination at work is prohibited by the Constitution and, more specifically, by the Equal Treatment Act. The Act covers every stage of employment and shifts the burden of proof to the employer once you have made discrimination plausible.

Article 1 of the Constitution

Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution (Grondwet) provides that everyone in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, disability, sexual orientation or any other ground is not permitted. Disability and sexual orientation were added to the text in 2023.

Article 1 sets the principle, but in a dispute between an employee and a private employer you will usually rely on the more detailed rules in the Equal Treatment Act and the Civil Code. The courts interpret those rules in the light of the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and European Union law, in particular Directive 2000/78/EC on equal treatment in employment.

The Equal Treatment Act (AWGB)

The Equal Treatment Act is the core of the protection. Article 1 AWGB distinguishes between direct and indirect distinction. Direct distinction means that someone is treated less favourably than another person in a comparable situation because of, for example, religion or belief. Indirect distinction means that an apparently neutral rule, criterion or practice places people of a particular religion at a particular disadvantage.

Article 5 AWGB prohibits both forms of distinction in employment. The prohibition covers:

recruitment and selection, including job advertisements and interview questions;
entering into and terminating the employment relationship;
terms and conditions of employment, such as pay, working hours and leave;
training, promotion and working conditions.

Under Article 2 AWGB, indirect distinction is not prohibited if it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means chosen to achieve that aim are appropriate and necessary. Direct distinction on the ground of religion can only be justified in the specific situations the Act itself lists, such as the exception for religious organisations discussed below.

Article 8 AWGB protects you against dismissal in breach of the prohibition, and Article 8a AWGB protects you against being disadvantaged because you invoked the Act, for example by filing a complaint or supporting a colleague. This protection against reprisals is called victimisation protection.

The burden of proof under Article 10 AWGB

Discrimination is rarely admitted in writing. That is why Article 10 AWGB shifts the burden of proof. If you put forward facts in court from which discrimination may be presumed, it is up to the employer to prove that it did not act in breach of the Act. You do not have to prove discrimination in full. The employer must then show, with convincing evidence, that the decision was based on other grounds or was objectively justified.

Some texts refer to Article 7:646 BW for this burden of proof. That provision deals with equal treatment of men and women. For religion and belief, the relevant provisions are those of the Equal Treatment Act.

The Civil Code

The Civil Code adds the employment law remedies. Under Article 7:681 BW, the subdistrict court can, at the employee’s request, annul a termination by the employer that breaches a prohibition of discrimination, or award fair compensation instead. You must file that request within two months after the day on which the employment ended (Article 7:686a(4) BW). This short deadline is easily missed.

Other provisions may also play a role. If the employer’s seriously culpable conduct makes it impossible to continue working, you can ask the court to dissolve the employment contract and award fair compensation (Article 7:671c BW). The employer also has a duty of care for a safe working environment, including protection against harassment and discriminatory behaviour by colleagues (Articles 7:611 and 7:658 BW). And compensation for non-material damage can be claimed under Article 6:106 BW.

Finally, Article 429quater of the Dutch Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) makes it an offence to discriminate against people in the exercise of a profession or business because of, among other things, their religion. Criminal prosecution in employment cases is rare, but it shows the weight the legislator attaches to the prohibition.

When may an employer make a distinction based on religion?

Only in narrow cases. A neutral rule can be allowed if it is objectively justified, and religious or ideological organisations may set requirements linked to their faith where the nature of the specific job makes this essential.

Objective justification of indirect distinction

An employer that relies on a neutral rule with a disadvantageous effect on people of a certain religion must show three things. First, the rule serves a legitimate aim, such as safety, hygiene or a genuine and consistently applied policy of neutrality towards customers. Second, the rule is appropriate, meaning that it actually contributes to that aim. Third, the rule is necessary: the aim cannot be reached with a measure that interferes less with religious freedom.

Courts apply this test strictly. General references to “company culture”, “what customers might think” or “how we have always done it” do not suffice. An employer needs a concrete, documented reason and must show that it considered alternatives, such as a different greeting, an adapted uniform or an adjusted schedule.

Religious and ideological organisations

Article 5(2) AWGB contains an exception for institutions based on religious or ideological principles, such as a church, a denominational school or a faith-based care organisation. They may set requirements relating to religion or belief for a position if, given the nature of the specific activity or the context in which it is carried out, those requirements constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement in view of the organisation’s ethos.

The exception is not a blank cheque. The requirement must relate to the actual job. A requirement that a teacher of religious education shares the school’s faith is more easily justified than the same requirement for a caretaker or an administrative employee. The organisation must also act in good faith and apply the requirement consistently.

Which situations lead to disputes in practice?

Most disputes concern religious clothing and symbols, prayer, religious holidays and customs such as greeting. In each case the question is whether the employer’s rule or decision is necessary, or whether a reasonable alternative was available.

Headscarves, turbans and other religious symbols

A ban on visible religious symbols affects some groups more than others and is therefore at least indirect distinction. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Achbita (C-157/15, 14 March 2017) that an internal rule prohibiting all visible political, philosophical and religious symbols does not amount to direct discrimination if it is applied in a general and undifferentiated way. Such a rule may be justified by a policy of neutrality towards customers, provided the policy is genuinely pursued in a consistent and systematic manner and limited to staff who come into contact with customers.

On the same day, the Court ruled in Bougnaoui (C-188/15) that a customer’s wish not to be served by an employee wearing a headscarf is not a genuine and determining occupational requirement. In WABE and Müller (C-804/18 and C-341/19, 15 July 2021), the Court added that the employer must demonstrate a genuine need for a neutrality policy, taking into account the rights and legitimate wishes of customers and the adverse consequences it would suffer without such a policy.

For Dutch employers this means that a headscarf ban for one employee, or a ban that only targets certain symbols, is very difficult to justify. A consistent neutrality policy may be permissible in specific customer-facing roles, but the employer must then also consider whether the employee can be offered a position without customer contact. Safety and hygiene rules, for example in production or healthcare, can justify restrictions, provided they are necessary and alternatives such as an adapted head covering have been considered.

Prayer during working hours

Dutch law does not give employees a statutory right to pray during working time. Where prayer can be combined with breaks or a flexible schedule, however, a refusal or a dismissal because an employee wishes to pray is a clear risk for the employer. The judgment of the North Holland District Court discussed below shows that a dismissal motivated by an employee’s need to pray can amount to direct discrimination.

In practice, many employers arrange a quiet room and allow short prayer breaks within the normal break time. Where the work cannot be interrupted, for example on a production line, the employer and employee can agree on fixed moments when a colleague takes over.

Religious holidays and days of rest

There is no statutory right to leave on religious holidays, and Christian holidays are not statutory days off either unless the contract or the collective labour agreement (cao) says so. An employee may ask to take holiday leave on a religious holiday. Under Article 7:638 BW, the employer sets the holiday dates in accordance with the employee’s wishes, unless there are compelling reasons not to. A structural refusal without good reason, while other employees are given leave on their holidays, may amount to indirect distinction.

The same applies to a request not to work on a weekly day of rest, such as Friday afternoon, Saturday or Sunday. The employer must take the request seriously and assess whether the schedule can be adapted. If that is not reasonably possible, for example because of the size of the team, the employer should be able to explain why.

Greeting and shaking hands

Some employees do not shake hands with people of the opposite sex for religious reasons. An employer that requires everyone to shake hands imposes a neutral rule that particularly affects these employees. The Hague District Court ruled in October 2025 that a dismissal for this reason in an IT position, in which the employee mainly worked remotely and by telephone, was not objectively justified. We discuss this judgment below.

Where there is a genuine need for a uniform greeting, a common solution is that the employee uses another respectful greeting, such as a hand on the heart, and briefly explains this where appropriate. Some employers apply one greeting to all staff, so that no one is treated differently.

Recruitment and job interviews

The prohibition applies before you are even hired. An employer may not reject an applicant because of religion, and questions about religion during an interview are in principle not relevant. Asking an applicant whether she intends to keep wearing a headscarf, or whether he will need time to pray, creates a risk: if the applicant is then rejected, those questions are facts from which discrimination may be presumed.

Employers do better to describe the actual requirements of the job, such as availability on certain days or safety clothing, and to assess all applicants against those same requirements. Keep notes of the reasons why a candidate was or was not selected.

Harassment and remarks by colleagues

Discrimination is not only about decisions by management. Hurtful remarks, jokes or exclusion by colleagues because of your faith can also make work unbearable. The employer must provide a safe working environment and must act when it becomes aware of such behaviour. Under the Working Conditions Act (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet), employers must also have a policy to prevent psychosocial workload, such as harassment, aggression and bullying at work.

The Limburg District Court ruled in August 2025 that the Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) had seriously breached its duty to provide safe working conditions by failing to deal adequately with harassment and discriminatory behaviour by a colleague (ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2025:8558). That case did not concern religion, but it shows that an employer that fails to act can itself be liable for fair compensation.

What do recent judgments show?

Two judgments from 2025 show that Dutch courts take religious discrimination seriously, also in the probationary period. In both cases the employer could not rebut the presumption of discrimination and the employee received fair compensation.

Dismissal after refusing to shake hands (The Hague, 2025)

In a judgment of 28 October 2025, the Hague District Court dealt with an employee who worked at an IT service desk (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:19487). On his second working day he declined to shake hands with a female colleague and explained that this was because of his religious beliefs. The employer terminated the employment the same day, during the probationary period, without giving written reasons.

Later the employer argued that the employee was not a good fit, that he had ignored an instruction, and that it pursued a neutrality policy requiring equal treatment of men and women. The court found that the employee had put forward sufficient facts from which discrimination could be presumed, so the burden of proof shifted to the employer under Article 10 AWGB. The employer’s other reasons were not substantiated.

The court accepted that equal treatment of men and women and neutrality can be legitimate aims. However, the requirement to shake hands was not necessary for the job, which consisted mainly of remote work and telephone contact. The dismissal was indirect discrimination without objective justification.

The employee had asked for fair compensation under Article 7:681 BW. The court assumed that without the discrimination, the employment would have continued for about a year. It also took into account that the employee had not shown any efforts to find new work in a sector with a shortage of IT staff. The court awarded fair compensation of EUR 34,000 gross, less than the amount claimed, plus statutory interest and legal costs.

Dismissal of a technician who needed to pray (North Holland, 2025)

In a judgment of 26 September 2025, the North Holland District Court dealt with a service technician at a fire safety company (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:11085). After a few days of work he indicated that, as a Muslim, he needed to pray once or twice a day and preferred not to work at pig farms. The employer terminated the employment during the probationary period and argued that there was a mismatch between the job and the employee’s religious requirements.

The court found that the termination was motivated by reasons connected to the expression of the employee’s faith. This was direct distinction on the ground of religion. The employer’s reference to neutrality failed, because it had no coherent and consistently applied neutrality policy, as the case law of the Court of Justice requires.

In setting the fair compensation, the court applied the criteria of the Supreme Court and looked at the loss of income for the agreed duration of the contract, reduced by what the employee earned in a new job. It also took into account the hurtful nature of a dismissal based on religious discrimination. The court awarded EUR 15,000 gross in fair compensation, together with the compensation for the notice period not observed and a small transition payment.

What these judgments teach

Both judgments show that a probationary period does not give the employer a free hand. A probationary dismissal normally does not need a reason, but it may not be discriminatory. Once the employee shows facts pointing to religion as a reason, the employer must come up with convincing evidence of another reason. Vague references to “fit” or “neutrality” without a consistent written policy will not work.

The judgments also show that the amount of compensation depends heavily on the facts of the case: the expected duration of the employment, the loss of income, the chance of finding other work and the seriousness of the conduct. They are no benchmark for other cases.

How is compensation determined?

There is no fixed scale. The compensation for a discriminatory dismissal usually consists of fair compensation, sometimes supplemented by compensation for a notice period that was not observed, the transition payment and, in exceptional cases, separate compensation for non-material damage.

Fair compensation

Fair compensation is the main component in most cases. The court can award it when a dismissal breaches a prohibition of discrimination (Article 7:681 BW), or when a contract is dissolved because of the employer’s seriously culpable conduct (Articles 7:671b and 7:671c BW). The court sets the amount on the basis of all the circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court set out the framework in its New Hairstyle judgment of 30 June 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1187). The main points are:

the court looks at all circumstances of the case, and the compensation is not intended as a punishment;
an important starting point is the value of the employment contract that was lost, often expressed as the income the employee would have received if the employment had continued;
the court estimates how long the employment would have lasted without the unlawful dismissal, and how quickly the employee can find other work;
other income, such as wages from a new job, may be taken into account;
the transition payment and any other payments the employee receives can also play a role.

In a judgment of 29 May 2020 (ECLI:NL:HR:2020:955), the Supreme Court added that the court must explain how it arrived at the amount. In that case, the court of appeal had awarded EUR 15,000 while the loss of income was around EUR 35,000, without explaining which circumstances justified the difference. The Supreme Court quashed that decision. For you as a party this means that the court’s reasoning on the amount must be clear and understandable.

Although fair compensation is not a punishment, courts do take the seriousness of the employer’s conduct into account. The North Holland judgment explicitly referred to the hurtful nature of a dismissal based on religion. The amount can therefore be higher than the pure loss of income, but it is always tied to the facts of the case.

Compensation for the notice period

If the employer terminates the contract without observing the applicable notice period, the employee is entitled to compensation equal to the wages for the notice period that was not observed (Article 7:672(10) BW). The statutory notice period for the employer depends on the length of the employment: one month for less than five years, two months for five to ten years, three months for ten to fifteen years and four months for fifteen years or more (Article 7:672(2) BW). A collective labour agreement can deviate from this. During a valid probationary period, the employment can be terminated with immediate effect, so this compensation does not apply then.

Transition payment

If the employer terminates the contract, the employee is in principle entitled to a transition payment (transitievergoeding) under Article 7:673 BW. It amounts to one third of a monthly salary for each year of service, calculated pro rata, up to a statutory maximum that is adjusted every year. The transition payment is not due if the employment ends because of the employee’s seriously culpable conduct.

Compensation for non-material damage

Under Article 6:106 BW, you can claim compensation for non-material damage in certain cases, including when you have been “injured in your person in another manner”. Courts generally require that the injury can be established objectively, for example by a diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist. Feelings of anger, sadness or disappointment alone are usually not enough.

The Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep) confirmed this standard in a judgment of 28 May 2025 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2025:845). The claimant had not provided objective data demonstrating psychological damage. The Tribunal nevertheless awarded a modest amount, because the nature and seriousness of the circumstances meant that he had been injured in his person in another manner. Although that case concerned social security, the same principles apply in civil law.

In discrimination cases, the hurtful nature of the conduct is often already taken into account in the fair compensation, as happened in the North Holland judgment. A separate claim for non-material damage has a better chance of success if you can provide medical evidence of psychological harm and a clear link with the discrimination.

What will the court take into account?

Every case is different. In practice, the following circumstances often play a role in the amount of compensation:

how serious and how explicit the discrimination was, and whether the employer tried to find a solution;
how long the employment would probably have continued without the dismissal;
your salary and the loss of income you suffer;
your position on the labour market and your efforts to find new work;
whether you have found new work, and at what salary;
the consequences for your health, where these can be established.

We deliberately do not give standard amounts. Published judgments show a wide range, and the outcome in your case depends on the facts and the evidence. We can assess your situation and give you a realistic estimate.

What can you do if you experience religious discrimination?

Record the facts as soon as possible, raise the matter internally where that is safe, and seek advice before any deadline expires. If you have been dismissed, act quickly: the request to the subdistrict court must be filed within two months after the employment ended.

Gathering facts and evidence

Because of the shifted burden of proof, you only need to present facts from which discrimination may be presumed. Examples of such facts are an e-mail or app message in which your religion is mentioned negatively, a dismissal shortly after you started wearing a headscarf or asked for time to pray, or a pattern in which colleagues in a similar position are treated differently.

Practical steps help you build a strong file:

write down what happened, when, where and who was present, as soon as possible after each incident;
keep e-mails, letters, app messages, performance reviews and your employment contract;
ask colleagues who witnessed remarks or incidents whether they are willing to make a written statement;
confirm important conversations in an e-mail, for example: “To confirm what we discussed today…”;
make a timeline showing when your religious practice became known and when the treatment changed.

In the Netherlands it is not a criminal offence to record a conversation in which you take part yourself. Courts often accept such recordings as evidence, although they weigh the circumstances. Recording conversations between other people in which you do not participate is not allowed.

Raising the matter internally

There is no legal obligation to complain internally first, but it is often sensible. It gives the employer the opportunity to put things right, and it shows that you acted reasonably. Many employers have a complaints procedure or a confidential adviser (vertrouwenspersoon). Submit your complaint in writing, describe the facts and ask for a written response within a reasonable period.

The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights

You can ask the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens) for an opinion on whether you have been treated unequally. The procedure is free of charge and you do not need a lawyer. The Institute investigates the complaint, hears both parties and issues a written opinion (oordeel), which it publishes on its website.

The opinion is not legally binding, and the Institute cannot award compensation. In practice, however, many employers follow the opinion, and courts take it into account. An important point: a complaint to the Institute does not stop the two-month deadline for a request to the subdistrict court. If you have been dismissed, you should therefore not wait for the opinion before going to court. More information is available on the website of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights.

Proceedings before the subdistrict court

If you want compensation or want the dismissal annulled, you must go to the subdistrict court. In employment cases before the subdistrict court you are not required to have a lawyer, but given the burden of proof and the deadlines, legal assistance is usually wise. The court can annul a discriminatory dismissal, award fair compensation, award compensation for damage and order the employer to pay part of your legal costs.

If you are still employed and the situation has become untenable because of discrimination, you can ask the court to dissolve the employment contract on the basis of the employer’s seriously culpable conduct. The court can then award fair compensation and a transition payment.

Other sources of help

Every municipality in the Netherlands must provide access to an anti-discrimination service (antidiscriminatievoorziening), where you can report discrimination and get support free of charge. If you are a member of a trade union, it can advise you and sometimes assist in proceedings. If you have a low income, you may be eligible for subsidised legal aid; the Legal Services Counter (Juridisch Loket) can tell you more. Many legal expenses insurance policies also cover employment disputes.

Protection against reprisals

Under Article 8a AWGB, your employer may not disadvantage you because you invoked the Equal Treatment Act, filed a complaint, or assisted someone else in doing so. A dismissal, demotion or negative assessment in response to your complaint is itself prohibited. Under Article 8 AWGB, a termination in response to such a complaint can be challenged in court. Mention in your complaint that you are relying on the Equal Treatment Act, so that the connection is clear if the employer later takes measures against you.

Deadlines

The most important deadline is the two-month period for a request to annul a dismissal or to obtain fair compensation under Article 7:681 BW. The same two-month period applies to most other requests relating to the end of the employment, such as a claim for the transition payment (Article 7:686a(4) BW). Claims for compensation of other damage are generally subject to a limitation period of five years (Article 3:310 BW), but waiting long makes it harder to prove your case. Seek advice as soon as possible.

How do proceedings before the subdistrict court work?

A request under Article 7:681 BW or for dissolution of the contract is started with a written application (verzoekschrift) to the subdistrict court. The application sets out the facts, the evidence and what you ask the court to decide. The employer can submit a written defence, after which the court usually holds an oral hearing where both parties and their representatives explain their positions. The court often explores at the hearing whether a settlement is possible.

The court then gives a decision (beschikking). Both parties can appeal to the court of appeal within three months (Article 7:683 BW). Court fees (griffierecht) are payable when the application is filed; the amount depends on your income and the value of the claim. If you win, the employer is usually ordered to pay part of your legal costs according to fixed rates, but that contribution rarely covers the full costs of a lawyer.

Many cases end in a settlement agreement (vaststellingsovereenkomst) before or during the proceedings. If you consider settling, check the wording carefully: a settlement usually includes a final discharge, so that you cannot bring further claims later.

What should employers do to prevent discrimination?

Set clear rules that are based on the actual requirements of the job, apply them consistently, and look for workable solutions when an employee asks for room for his or her faith. Careful documentation is essential, because in a dispute the employer carries the burden of proof.

A written policy

A good policy states that the organisation does not discriminate on grounds of religion or belief, explains how requests relating to religious practice are handled, and describes the complaints procedure. If the organisation wants to pursue neutrality towards customers, that policy must be written down, apply to all visible religious, political and philosophical symbols alike, and be limited to positions where it is genuinely needed. The case law of the Court of Justice shows that a neutrality policy introduced only after a conflict has arisen will not hold.

Looking for alternatives

Dutch law does not contain a general duty of “reasonable accommodation” for religion, as it does for disability. In practice, however, the necessity test comes close to it. If an employer dismisses an employee or refuses a request without considering alternatives, it will struggle to show that its measure was necessary. Examples of alternatives are:

allowing short prayer breaks within the normal break time and offering a quiet room;
adapting a uniform, for example by offering a head covering in the company colours;
allowing employees to swap shifts or take holiday leave on religious holidays;
agreeing on another respectful greeting instead of a handshake;
offering a comparable position without customer contact where a neutrality policy genuinely applies.

Not every request must be granted. If an adjustment would seriously disrupt the work, place a disproportionate burden on colleagues or conflict with safety rules, the employer may refuse. It must then be able to explain which alternatives it considered and why they were not feasible.

Objective job requirements

Review job requirements for unintended effects. A general ban on head coverings, mandatory availability on every day of the week, or a requirement to attend drinks with alcohol can all have a disproportionate effect on employees of a particular faith. For each requirement, ask whether it is really necessary for the job, and whether the same aim can be reached in a less restrictive way. Where safety requires specific clothing, state that reason explicitly.

Training and handling complaints

Many conflicts arise from uncertainty rather than bad intent. Managers and HR staff should know what the law requires, how to discuss a request for room for religious practice, and what to do when a complaint is made. Take complaints seriously, investigate them promptly and record the outcome. Make sure that the person who complained is not disadvantaged, as Article 8a AWGB prohibits reprisals.

Documentation

Record the real reasons for decisions on hiring, assessment, promotion and dismissal at the time they are made. A probationary dismissal does not require reasons, but if an employee later claims discrimination, the employer must be able to show on what grounds it decided. Notes made after the dispute has arisen carry less weight. Avoid irrelevant remarks about someone’s religion in files and messages.

What are the risks for employers?

An employer that discriminates risks having a dismissal annulled, having to pay fair compensation, compensation for the notice period and the transition payment, and being ordered to pay part of the employee’s legal costs. An opinion of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights is published, which can affect the employer’s reputation. And the conflict itself costs management time and can affect the working atmosphere. Prevention is almost always less costly than a dispute.

For more on the rules on dismissal and the obligations of employers, see our overview of Dutch employment law.

Who is protected, and what counts as religion or belief?

Everyone who works in the Netherlands is protected, whatever their nationality or the nationality of their employer. The protection covers religions as well as non-religious beliefs that form a coherent view of life.

Religion and belief

The Equal Treatment Act protects religion (godsdienst) and belief (levensovertuiging). Religion covers the major world religions, but also smaller faith communities. Belief refers to a coherent philosophy of life with fundamental views on human existence, such as humanism. Not every personal opinion or preference is a belief in this sense. Political opinion is a separate protected ground under the Act.

The protection covers not only holding a faith, but also expressing it, for example by wearing religious clothing, praying, observing dietary rules or keeping a day of rest. That does not mean every expression must be accepted at all times, but restrictions must be justified.

Expats and international employees

If you habitually work in the Netherlands, Dutch equal treatment law applies, even if your employer is based abroad or your contract says that foreign law governs it. Under European rules on the law applicable to contracts, a choice of law may not deprive you of the protection of the mandatory rules of the country where you habitually work. For expats this means that the prohibition of religious discrimination, the shifted burden of proof and the Dutch dismissal remedies are available to you.

Applicants, agency workers and others

The prohibition protects not only employees on a permanent contract, but also applicants, employees on a fixed-term contract, agency workers and people who find work through an employment agency. Article 5 AWGB also covers access to vocational training and the conditions of employment offered through intermediaries. Self-employed professionals are protected when it comes to access to and the practice of a liberal profession (Article 6 AWGB).

What does this look like in practice?

A few anonymised examples show how the rules work.

An employee who has worked for a logistics company for several years starts wearing a headscarf. Soon afterwards she receives a warning about her “appearance”, although there is no written dress code. A month later she is dismissed for “not fitting in”. These facts are sufficient to shift the burden of proof. The employer must now prove that the headscarf played no role, which will be difficult without a consistent, pre-existing policy.

An employee in a small team working around the clock asks never to work on Saturdays for religious reasons. The employer investigates, but finds that without new staff the other team members would permanently have to cover all Saturday shifts. It offers the employee a rotating arrangement with fewer Saturdays, and a transfer to a day-shift team as soon as a position is available. Because the employer considered alternatives and explained its choice, it is in a much stronger position if the employee complains.

An applicant is asked during an interview whether he will need time to pray during working hours. He answers yes and is rejected without further explanation. The question itself, combined with the rejection, is a fact from which discrimination may be presumed. The employer will have to show that the rejection was based on other, objective grounds.

In summary

The Equal Treatment Act prohibits direct and indirect distinction on the ground of religion or belief at every stage of employment (Articles 1 and 5 AWGB).
Once you present facts that point to discrimination, your employer must prove it did not discriminate (Article 10 AWGB).
A neutral rule is only permitted if it serves a legitimate aim and is appropriate and necessary; religious organisations have a limited exception (Articles 2 and 5(2) AWGB).
A discriminatory dismissal, also during the probationary period, can be annulled or lead to fair compensation (Article 7:681 BW); the request must be filed within two months.
Employers reduce their risk with a clear written policy, genuine attention to alternatives and careful documentation.

Frequently asked questions

Can I be dismissed during my probationary period because of my religion?

No. A probationary dismissal does not require a reason, but it may not be discriminatory. If it is, you can ask the subdistrict court within two months to annul the dismissal or award fair compensation.

Can my employer ban my headscarf?

Only in limited cases, such as a genuine and consistently applied neutrality policy for customer-facing staff, or a necessary safety or hygiene rule. A ban targeting one employee or one religion is not permitted.

Do I have to complain internally first?

No, this is not required by law. It is often sensible, but do not let an internal procedure make you miss the two-month deadline for court proceedings after a dismissal.

Is the opinion of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights binding?

No. The opinion is not legally binding and the Institute cannot award compensation, but employers often follow it and courts take it into account.

Does this also apply to small businesses?

Yes. The prohibition of discrimination applies to all employers in the Netherlands, regardless of their size.

Law & More advises employees and employers in the Netherlands on equal treatment, dismissal and compensation, in and out of court. You can also read more about our work as an employment lawyer.

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

Religious discrimination at work in the Netherlands