Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity

Dutch court rules a recruitment consultant's summary dismissal invalid; his employer had cited his ChatGPT queries about severance among seven grounds

On 23 June 2025 a recruitment agency summarily dismissed a recruitment consultant it had employed since January 2024, giving seven grounds in its dismissal letter. One ground, misuse of company resources and an integrity breach, concerned questions he had put to ChatGPT on his work laptop about how to obtain a severance payment from the employer: the employer said he made defamatory statements about it there and breached his duty of confidentiality with the information he entered. He did not dispute the queries. In a decision given on 27 February 2026, the sub-district judge of the Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant ruled the dismissal invalid, because the employer had not established another ground and the seven grounds formed a single composite reason. On the ChatGPT ground the judge found that private use of the laptop had not been forbidden, that he had shared only information about his employment relationship and no company secrets, and that this was culpable to a limited extent. In a final decision of 22 May 2026 the court awarded him a transition payment of 2,976.04 euros gross, fixed damages of 4,565.70 euros gross and costs, but refused the 25,000 euros of fair compensation he sought, weighing his limited income loss and his own culpable conduct, which it listed as including his sharing of information about the employment relationship. His fixed-term contract would have ended on 1 August 2025, when he started a new job.

AI system
ChatGPT
Occurred
23 Jun 2025
Reported
4 March 2026
Event location
Netherlands
What the AI did
Relation unknown
Reported harm
Professional Harm
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account
6 claims: 6 documented. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: ChatGPT, used by the employee on his work laptop to ask how to obtain a severance payment; the employer cited these queries as a ground for summary dismissal

What Happened

The dismissal. The employee worked as a recruitment consultant at a recruitment agency from January 2024 on a fixed-term contract. In March 2025 the employer told him it would not renew the contract, which was due to end on 1 August 2025. He was on sick leave in spring 2025, the employer stopped his wages from 9 April 2025 and the relationship deteriorated. On 13 June 2025 the employer cleaned his work laptop, found he was still active on it and, after examining it, identified conduct it considered culpable. By letter of 23 June 2025 it dismissed him with immediate effect, listing seven grounds. The sixth, misuse of company resources and an integrity breach, concerned his ChatGPT use: according to the court, the employer accused him of using the company laptop to ask ChatGPT how he could claim a severance payment from the employer and of making defamatory statements about it, and the letter said he had breached his duty of confidentiality with the information he entered into ChatGPT. He did not dispute the queries.

The court's assessment. The sub-district judge treated the seven grounds as one composite urgent reason, so that the dismissal failed once one ground was not established; the alleged misrepresentation at hiring was not established. On the ChatGPT ground, the judge found that the employer had not forbidden private use of the laptop, that the questions showed he wanted to see how best to leave while sick, that nothing showed he had shared company secrets, and that sharing information about his own employment relationship was culpable to a limited extent. Having found the dismissal invalid, the judge assessed the remaining grounds only for the degree of culpability relevant to compensation, and found some of his conduct culpable.

Remedy. In the final decision the court awarded a transition payment and fixed damages for irregular termination, and costs. It held that the employer had acted seriously culpably by dismissing him without valid reason, but refused fair compensation because his income loss was limited (he started a slightly better-paid job on 1 August 2025) and because of his own culpable conduct, which it listed as including that he had shared information about his employment relationship. The record does not establish that the dismissal would not have happened without the ChatGPT ground; it was one of seven.

Reported harm

The consultant was dismissed with immediate effect on grounds that included his ChatGPT queries about severance; the court ruled the dismissal invalid and awarded statutory payments.

How Harm Occurred

The employer dismissed the employee with immediate effect on seven grounds, one of which was that he had used ChatGPT on his work laptop to research a severance claim and had entered information about his employment into it; the court ruled the dismissal invalid.

Outcome

Resolved

Interim decision of 27 February 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:1393): the summary dismissal was not legally valid. Final decision of 22 May 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:5043): the employer must pay a transition payment of 2,976.04 euros gross and fixed damages of 4,565.70 euros gross with statutory interest, and costs of 1,578 euros; fair compensation was refused. No appeal decision was found; whether either party appealed is not known.

What remains unknown

  • Whether either party appealed the decisions.
  • The wording of the statements the employer called defamatory and of the information he entered into ChatGPT, beyond the questions quoted by the court.
  • Whether the dismissal would have been given without the ChatGPT ground, which was one of seven.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The harm is the employer's response to the employee's own ChatGPT use. The court records that the dismissal letter's sixth ground, misuse of company resources and an integrity breach, concerned his ChatGPT queries on the work laptop about obtaining a severance payment, and that the letter called the information he entered into ChatGPT a breach of his confidentiality duty; the court assessed that ground in its own paragraphs and found the conduct culpable to a limited extent. No source says ChatGPT's replies played any part in the dismissal, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption. The ChatGPT ground was one of seven.

6 claims: 6 documented. What the statuses mean

Documented By letter of 23 June 2025 the employer dismissed the recruitment consultant with immediate effect, giving seven grounds, one of which was misuse of company resources and an integrity breach.

Causal attribution. The dismissal letter as recorded by the court; one origin (the court record).

  • data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Bij brief van 23 juni 2025 heeft'; 'op staande voet ontslagen. In de brief zijn als redenen vermeld'; '6. misbruik van bedrijfsmiddelen en integriteitsinbreuk;'
  • accountancyvanmorgen.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Uiteindelijk leidde dit tot een ontslag op staande voet op 23 juni 2025, gebaseerd op een combinatie van zeven verwijten.'
Documented Under that ground the employer accused him of asking ChatGPT on the company laptop how to claim a severance payment from the employer and of making defamatory statements about it there; the dismissal letter said he breached his confidentiality duty with the information he entered into ChatGPT. He did not dispute the queries.

Causal attribution. The court records the employer's accusation and the employee's response; that the letter made the accusation is documented, its merits are assessed in c4.

  • data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'heeft de gestelde zoekvragen op ChatGPT niet betwist'; 'met de in ChatGPT ingevoerde informatie zijn geheimhoudingsplicht heeft geschonden'
  • accountancyvanmorgen.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'De werkgever verwijt de werknemer dat hij met de bedrijfslaptop op ChatGPT heeft gezocht hoe hij een ontslagvergoeding kon vorderen van de werkgever en daarbij lasterlijke beweringen heeft gedaan over de werkgever.'
Documented On 27 February 2026 the sub-district judge ruled the summary dismissal not legally valid, because the alleged misrepresentation at hiring was not established and the grounds formed a composite urgent reason.

Causal attribution. The court ruling itself.

  • data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Omdat de gestelde misleiding bij sollicitatie niet komt vast te staan en er sprake is van een samengestelde dringende reden moet worden geconcludeerd dat het ontslag op staande voet niet rechtsgeldig is gegeven'; 'in het openbaar uitgesproken op 27 februari 2026'
Documented On the ChatGPT ground the judge found that private use of the laptop had not been forbidden, that he had shared only information about his employment relationship and no company secrets were shown, and that this was culpable to a limited extent.

Causal attribution. The court's own finding on the ChatGPT ground.

  • data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'de bedrijfslaptop voor privé zoekopdrachten mocht gebruiken'; 'enkel informatie heeft gedeeld over zijn arbeidsrelatie met'; 'is in de beperkte mate verwijtbaar'
Documented On 22 May 2026 the court awarded a transition payment of 2,976.04 euros gross, fixed damages of 4,565.70 euros gross and costs, and refused fair compensation, weighing his limited income loss and his own culpable conduct, which it listed as including that he had shared information about his employment relationship.

Causal attribution. The final decision itself.

  • data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'een transitievergoeding van € 2.976,04 bruto'; 'een gefixeerde schadevergoeding van € 4.565,70 bruto'; 'hij heeft informatie gedeeld over zijn arbeidsrelatie met'; 'geen aanleiding is om een billijke vergoeding toe te kennen'
Documented The fixed-term contract would have ended on 1 August 2025 without the dismissal, and he started another, slightly better-paid job on that date.

Causal attribution. The final decision; limits the income loss.

Sources

3 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-25 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Interim decision of the sub-district judge, Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (sitting in Tilburg), given 27 February 2026; open-data XML, HTTP 200, full text read. The court pseudonymises both parties. Applies to s1.

Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-25 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Final decision in the same case (case number 11850634), given 22 May 2026; open-data XML, HTTP 200, full text read. Applies to s2.

Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-25 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Accountancy Vanmorgen summary of the interim decision, 3 April 2026; HTTP 200, full text read. It derives from the judgment and is not independent of it. Applies to s3.

Event countries: Netherlands. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Netherlands.

The final decision states that the employer is established in Tilburg ('gevestigd te Tilburg'), placing the employment and the dismissal in the Netherlands; the case was decided by the Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant. The employee's residence is pseudonymised and left unknown.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-25: Published as a consequential-response case: a Dutch court recorded that an employer's summary dismissal letter cited, as one of seven grounds, the employee's ChatGPT queries about a severance claim and the information he entered into ChatGPT, ruled the dismissal invalid, and awarded statutory payments. Both court decisions were read in full.

People described

A recruitment consultant employed by a recruitment agency on a fixed-term contract from January 2024

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the dismissed employee, who was himself the ChatGPT user (both court decisions).

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#dismissal#workplace-ai#labour-court#chatgpt#netherlands#consequential-response

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Dutch court rules a recruitment consultant's summary dismissal invalid; his employer had cited his ChatGPT queries about severance among seven grounds. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-dutch-court-rules-recruitment-consultants-summary-dismissal-invalid-after-employer-cited-his-chatgpt-queries

BibTeX

@misc{2025_dutch_court_rules_recruitment_consultants_summary_dismissal_invalid_after_employer_cited_his_chatgpt_queries,
  title = {Dutch court rules a recruitment consultant's summary dismissal invalid; his employer had cited his ChatGPT queries about severance among seven grounds},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-dutch-court-rules-recruitment-consultants-summary-dismissal-invalid-after-employer-cited-his-chatgpt-queries}
}

Related cases

Medium ChatGPT

Brasília labour court upholds the for-cause dismissal of a manager it found used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest an iFood customer's complaint

In a judgment of 30 July 2026, the 2nd Labour Court of Brasília (Regional Labour Court of the 10th Region) upheld the dismissal for cause, on 19 March 2026, of a manager hired in June 2024. The employer said he had used artificial intelligence to falsify photos of orders on the iFood delivery app. A witness told the court she saw him use ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order, in which two of four soft drinks had been sent, so that it appeared complete, and use it to contest the customer's complaint to iFood support. The judge found this an act of dishonesty and misconduct that broke the trust required of a manager, rejected his claim that the dismissal was fabricated in retaliation for a claim he had filed the day before, dismissed all his claims, denied severance items and ordered him to pay 10% counsel fees, suspended because he was granted free legal aid. The legal news site Migalhas reported the judgment on 3 August 2026. No appeal is reported.

Low ChatGPT

3M dropped an expert witness in a Houston explosion trial after discovery showed he had used ChatGPT to draft his report, CBS News reports

In a 2026 Texas trial over 3M's role in the January 2020 Watson Grinding explosion in Houston, which killed three people, an engineering expert retained for 3M used ChatGPT to prepare his expert report, according to discovery records and transcripts reviewed by 404 Media and CBS News. One prompt asked ChatGPT to show how 3M was 0% at fault for the explosion. The plaintiffs' lawyers, who found a citation overlay document and then hundreds of pages of prompts, said ChatGPT produced more than 80% of the report. Under questioning, the expert acknowledged using AI to help draft the report but defended his research. CBS News reports that after the deposition 3M's attorneys removed him from their witness list, and the plaintiffs subpoenaed him to testify about his prompts at trial. The expert's lawyer said he did not delegate his opinions to ChatGPT and called public characterisations a selective distortion of the record; 3M said he was an independent witness who used AI as a tool after reaching his own conclusions. The jury found 3M negligent and the court awarded the victims $61.5 million; 3M said it would appeal.

Medium ChatGPT

New Mexico Supreme Court fines attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and removes him from a murder appeal over ChatGPT-fabricated testimony

Santa Fe defense attorney Stephen Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI's o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the record to draft briefing in the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval; the brief contained fabricated witnesses and testimony (including police officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez' and invented testimony attributed to real people) and misdescribed real precedents. After a 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing at which Aarons admitted he had not verified the output, the New Mexico Supreme Court's written order of 9 September 2026 held him in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, removed him from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender.

High ChatGPT

Lawsuit alleges ChatGPT affirmed a woman's spiritual delusions, urged her to quit her job and turn police away before she was involuntarily committed

Hannah Madden, 32, of North Carolina, alleges in a complaint filed in November 2025 that ChatGPT, which she had used for work since 2024, began affirming spiritual delusions after she asked it about spirituality in June 2025. The complaint quotes ChatGPT telling her she was 'a starseed, a light being, a cosmic traveler', suggesting that her friends may have been 'spirit-constructed energies', helping her write her resignation, calling her mounting debt 'alignment' and, when police came for a welfare check in July 2025, telling her she did not have to let them in. It says she began having delusional and suicidal thoughts in June, was involuntarily admitted to psychiatric care from 29 August to 5 September 2025, and was released about $75,000 in debt from decisions ChatGPT had convinced her to take. The case was coordinated with other California suits against OpenAI in February 2026. The allegations, including the causal link to ChatGPT, are untested.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents