From Eye Infection to Full Disability: What Must Job Applicants Disclose?
An employee reported sick several times due to various complaints. He was examined by a rheumatologist, but no clear diagnosis could be made. He was then referred to a rehabilitation physician, who conducted a screening but did not initiate a rehabilitation program. According to the company doctor, there was a suspicion of a condition that caused complaints during physical strain. As a result, a return to physically demanding work was highly uncertain.
About two months later, the employee resigned from his employment contract. After a short stint as a site supervisor, he started a new job as a mechanic on 1 May 2022. During the recruitment process, he did not disclose any health issues. The Employee did have a visible eye infection at the time of hiring. In November 2022, he reported sick again. It was later determined that he suffers from a rare condition (sarcoidosis), which has left him fully unfit for work.
The employer argued that the employee had withheld relevant medical information during the hiring process. According to her, he should have informed them that his health would severely and long-term impact his ability to perform the job. Had the employer known, they would never have entered into the contract. Therefore the Employer sought to annul the employment agreement and demanded a partial refund of the wages already paid.
The District Court’s Decision
The employee challenged this in court (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2024:2217). He requests confirmation that the contract was wrongly terminated and that it remained in effect, including entitlement to wages. It was ruled by the district court that there was insufficient evidence that the employee should have disclosed his health condition beforehand. Therefore the employment contract remained valid, and the employer was ordered to pay the outstanding wages plus the statutory 20% increase.
The employer appealed the decision (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:3303).
Employer Claims Nondisclosure of Health Issues
To support her claim, the employer received and submitted a problem analysis from the company doctor from the employee’s previous employment. The analysis shows that at that time the employee was completely unfit for work and had no usable capacity to perform any tasks. It also states that returning to physically demanding work would not have been possible. According to the employer, this makes it incomprehensible that the employee shortly thereafter applied for a physically more demanding position.
What Really Happened?
The court clarified that extrajudicial annulment of an employment contract is not excluded under Dutch labor law (ECLI:NL:HR:2020:213). An employee must inform the employer if, at the time the contract was concluded, they knew or should have known that their health would significantly and persistently affect their ability to perform the agreed work. The statutory dismissal system does not prevent this. It is specifically intended to address cases in which an employee commits fraud when entering into an employment contract.
The key question was whether the employee knew or should have known at the time of hiring, that his health would severely and long-term restrict him. The court concluded that this could not be inferred from the circumstances.
Until his sick leave on 8 November 2022, the employee performed physically demanding work and functioned well. This shows that he was able to carry out his job for over nine months without any health-related problems.
Moreover, it was not established that he was undergoing a long-term medical investigation at the time of hiring that he should have disclosed. Around and after the start of his employment, he was examined by an ophthalmologist for an eye infection. This did not mean that he knew, or should have known, that the condition would have a long-term impact on his work. Additionally, the employer was aware of the eye infection from the outset.
Employee Receives Wages Plus 50% Statutory Increase
The court concludes that the employer has not sufficiently shown that the employee had a duty to disclose his health situation. There is no convincing evidence that, at the time the contract was concluded, the employee knew or should have known that his health would cause significant and long-term limitations. The plea of mistake therefore fails. The employment contract remains in force, the employer must pay the outstanding.