The Bottom Line
- Process is Paramount: Suspending a senior executive based on an internal investigation, without first giving them a chance to respond to the findings, is a critical procedural error that can lead to a court-ordered reversal.
- Suspension is a High Bar: Dutch courts view suspension as an extreme measure. The employer must prove a compelling and urgent reason that outweighs the senior employee’s significant interest in continuing their work and protecting their reputation.
- Internal Reports Aren’t a Blank Check: The findings of an employer-commissioned investigation, even one conducted by an external law firm, are not automatically accepted as fact by a court, especially when the subject has not been given a proper right of reply before action is taken.
The Details
In a significant ruling for corporate governance and employment law, the District Court of Amsterdam has ordered the international engineering firm Arcadis to reinstate its Global General Counsel. The executive was suspended with immediate effect on November 10, 2025, following an internal investigation. Arcadis alleged that she had failed in her duties of integrity and diligence related to a separate UK employment tribunal case, claiming her actions had damaged the company’s credibility. The company had already filed for the termination of her contract and reported her to the UK’s Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
The court’s decision hinged not on the substance of the allegations but on a fundamental procedural failure by the employer. The judge ruled that Arcadis acted improperly by suspending its top lawyer without first providing her with the investigation report and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court stressed that the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) is a minimum requirement of “good employers,” especially before implementing a measure as drastic and reputationally damaging as suspension. Arcadis’s argument that the executive had already been interviewed by the investigators was deemed insufficient, as that interview did not concern the potential suspension itself.
This judgment serves as a stark reminder for boards and CEOs about the risks of hasty action in high-stakes employment disputes. The court found that Arcadis had failed to demonstrate an urgent necessity that justified skipping this crucial procedural step. Furthermore, the company’s claims of severe reputational damage were considered unsubstantiated in the preliminary proceedings. While the court rejected the General Counsel’s secondary claims for a public rectification and indemnification against SRA-related costs, the core order to reinstate her sends a powerful message: procedural fairness is not a formality, but a cornerstone of lawful employer conduct.
Source
District Court of Amsterdam
