Reported Sick but Competing in a HYROX Race: Can an Employer Dismiss You?

Does this mean that exercising while off sick is prohibited? No. This ruling by the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court primarily demonstrates that it is not the exercise itself, but the circumstances in which it takes place, that may be relevant.

The employee had been working for a property company since January 2025. From the outset, there had been tensions concerning her availability for work. She did not always work all the agreed hours, regularly reported that she would not be attending work, and made arrangements to swap and make up hours.

Despite this history, the employer extended her employment contract in 2026. The parties agreed to work towards rebuilding mutual trust.

On 10 February 2026, the employee called in sick, citing tensions in the employment relationship. A month later, she informed her employer that she had contracted glandular fever and a severe throat infection. She stated that she was unable to work, became exhausted after even minor exertion, and slept for much of the day.

Two weeks later, she took part in a HYROX race: an intensive competition involving a total of eight kilometres of running interspersed with demanding fitness exercises.

When confronted by her employer, she responded that exercise is healthy. The employer considered this explanation insufficient and lost confidence in her. The employer subsequently summarily dismissed her.

Calling in sick does not mean that an employee must refrain from all activities. Employees may, for example, exercise or engage in other activities while on sick leave. Whether a particular activity is compatible with their medical condition and recovery is, in the first instance, a medical question.

Employers should therefore not make their own assessment of what an employee is medically capable of doing. That is the role of the occupational health physician.

This does not mean, however, that an employee’s conduct during sick leave can never be relevant to the employer.

The subdistrict court did not consider the employee’s participation in a sporting event during sick leave in isolation. Instead, it assessed the circumstances as a whole.

Shortly before the race, the employee had stated that even minor exertion left her exhausted and that she slept for much of the day. Two weeks later, she took part in a competition involving eight kilometres of running and intensive fitness exercises.

In addition, the employment relationship had already been under considerable strain for some time. There had previously been problems concerning her availability for work, attendance and compliance with agreements. When her employment contract was extended, the parties had specifically agreed to work towards rebuilding mutual trust.

Against this background, the subdistrict court concluded that the employer could reasonably find that its confidence in the continuation of the employment relationship had been seriously undermined. The summary dismissal therefore stood.

The ruling emphatically does not mean that an employee who exercises while off sick automatically breaches their reintegration obligations. For example, someone may be able to run several kilometres but still be unable to work a full day. If you have concerns about the medical aspects as an employer, consult the occupational health physician.

Even where an employee’s conduct raises questions, summary dismissal is not automatically justified. There must be an urgent cause (dringende reden). In addition, the dismissal must be effected without delay, and the urgent cause must be communicated to the employee without delay.

In this case, the subdistrict court considered the circumstances sufficiently serious. The earlier problems in the employment relationship, the employee’s statements about her physical capacity and her participation in the HYROX race together formed the relevant context.

Notably, the court found the employee’s conduct blameworthy, but not seriously culpable (ernstig verwijtbaar). An urgent cause justifying summary dismissal does not automatically mean that the employee has acted with serious culpability. The employee was therefore still entitled to a statutory transition payment (transitievergoeding) despite the dismissal.

The dismissal also had financial consequences for the employee. The employer claimed fixed compensation (gefixeerde schadevergoeding) in connection with the summary dismissal. The court awarded compensation but substantially reduced the amount.

Ultimately, this ruling is not about whether an employee who is off sick is allowed to exercise. The key issue is the consistency between what an employee communicates about their capacity for work and what they subsequently do.

An employee who states that even minor exertion is too demanding and then takes part in an intensive sporting event shortly afterwards may raise legitimate questions. This is particularly relevant where the employment relationship is already strained and the parties have previously agreed to work towards rebuilding trust.

That does not mean employers should make their own assessment of whether an employee is “sick enough” to exercise. Medical assessments are the responsibility of the occupational health physician. Employers may, however, consider objective facts, existing agreements and an employee’s conduct during sick leave.

The key lesson? It was not the HYROX race itself that proved decisive, but the combination of what the employee had said, what she subsequently did and the history between the parties. Where an employee’s statements and conduct during sick leave are clearly at odds, this may — depending on all the circumstances — affect the employer’s trust and ultimately even the continuation of the employment relationship.

Do you have questions about sickness absence, reintegration or summary dismissal? Please contact Eline Snijders, attorney at law specialising in employment law and works council matters.

Would you like to receive a monthly overview of our latest updates and blog articles? Subscribe to our newsletter!