Eastern High Court: Offensive Behavior Toward a Colleague Justified Termination but Not Summary Dismissal

An employee’s grossly offensive message to a female colleague, with whom he had previously had a romantic relationship, could justify a termination but not a summary dismissal, the Eastern High Court decided in a ruling dated September 10, 2026. The Court of Appeals also found that the employer had forfeited the right to invoke a subsequently discovered, alleged criminal offense as further grounds for the suspension.

Employee Dismissed After Sending Offensive Message to a Coworker

The case involved a sales representative who had been in a romantic relationship with a female colleague. After the relationship ended, the employee placed a printout of the colleague’s profile picture from a dating app in her drawer at work. He had attached a note with a grossly offensive message to the picture.

When the colleague found the message, she notified the company’s management, which, after discussions with the employee, decided to conduct a summary dismissal. The employer argued that the summary dismissal was justified on the grounds of repeated inappropriate behavior and harassment of the female colleague.

The employee disputed that the dismissal was justified and filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for lost wages during the notice period as well as compensation under Section 2(b) of the Danish Salaried Employees Act.

During the trial, the employer also argued that, the day after the dismissal, the employee had attempted to commit fraud by persuading a customer to transfer 75,449 euros to an unauthorized bank account. This was cited during the trial as further grounds for the summary dismissal.

Offensive conduct could justify termination, but not summary dismissal

The Eastern High Court first considered whether the employee’s conduct constituted such a gross breach of the employment contract that suspension was justified.

The Court of Appeals found that the employer had not presented sufficient evidence of the alleged prolonged harassment, which they had cited as grounds in the summary dismissal notice. The High Court emphasized, in particular, that the colleague had not testified in the case herself, and that aside from the grossly offensive note in her, drawer, there was no documentation of additional text messages or telephone contact besides another note and a QR code. Furthermore, the employee had not previously been confronted with the matter or given a warning.

Considering the content of the offensive message, the employee’s reaction when confronted with the matter, as well as management’s assessment of the situation and the prospects for future cooperation, the High Court found that termination with notice would have been reasonably justified.

The employee was awarded compensation as a result of the unjustified summary dismissal, equivalent to his salary during the notice period. The High Court, however found no basis for awarding the employee compensation for wrongful termination under Section 2(b) of the Salaried Employees Act as a termination with notice would have been reasonably justified.

The employer had forfeited the right to invoke a subsequently alleged criminal offenses further justification of the summary dismissal

The High Court then had to determine whether the alleged attempted fraud could justify the suspension. 

The employer had become aware of the matter the day after the suspension and had subsequently reported it to the police. However, the employee had not been confronted with specific allegations, and the employer had not invoked the matter as a further justification of the summary dismissal until its reply to the complaint during the court proceedings more than eight months later.

The High Court therefore found that the employer had forfeited the right to invoke the alleged criminal offense as grounds for the summary dismissal. It was thus not necessary to determine whether the employee had in fact committed the alleged acts.

Littler notes

The ruling shows that even grossly offensive behavior toward a colleague will not necessarily be considered a breach of contract serious enough to justify a summary dismissal without notice. Employers should therefore carefully consider the proportionality of the disciplinary action and ensure that there is sufficient documentary evidence to support the allegations.

Finally, the ruling shows that an employer may forfeit the right to invoke a additional basis for a summary dismissal if the employer does not address the issue in a timely fashion substantiating the breach.

At Littler, we regularly advise employer’s on how to handle employees’ breaches of employment contracts, including issues related to warnings, terminations, and suspensions.

You can contact us here.

Disclaimer: The above is not, and cannot replace, legal advice.

Reference to the judgment: https://pro.karnovgroup.dk/b/documents/7001110505