Dutch court upholds firing of Under Armour manager over €650 bag of untagged clothing
A Dutch court has upheld the summary dismissal of a senior Under Armour store employee after a bag containing 650 euros' worth of untagged clothing was found hidden out of CCTV view in a fitting-room corridor, rejecting her claim for more than 80,000 euros in compensation and ordering her to repay the salary she received after her firing.
The woman, 43, had worked since October 1, 2018, as a store manager at the Under Armour shop in Bataviastad, earning a gross monthly salary of 4,143.49 euros, excluding vacation pay. Under Armour dismissed her with immediate effect on May 7, 2025, citing violations of company theft-prevention rules and a loss of trust.
According to the court, the incident unfolded after the employee cleared out a large fitting room on April 23, 2025, which had been used as storage during her long period of illness. The next day, a regional colleague sent to assist with inventory entered the fitting-room corridor at 1:05 p.m. and found a black Under Armour gym bag filled with new clothing valued at 650 euros. None of the items had the required alarm tags, including two identical jackets priced above 49.99 euros.
The bag was positioned beneath hanging garments in the farthest corner of the fitting rooms, outside the range of the store’s CCTV cameras.
In an internal email sent at 1:14 p.m., the employee wrote, “I have a question. Since yesterday, I have had a bag of items for a customer who will pick it up today. Is that prohibited? Minutes later, she emailed again, stating the bag had been for a customer since the previous day and that she had been unaware that such behavior was prohibited.
The colleague who found the bag reported that the employee immediately claimed it was reserved for a customer, then for a friend, and insisted she was entitled to hold merchandise as a manager. When told company policy forbade this, the employee reacted angrily, saying, “I can’t believe this,” according to the report.
A newly appointed store supervisor later stated that the employee’s explanation changed repeatedly throughout the day—first claiming the bag was hers, then that it was for a customer, later for a friend, and finally saying she had merely found it in the fitting room. “I have never experienced a hidden bag in the furthest part of a fitting room, away from all CCTV cameras, before,” he wrote.
That afternoon, the employee was suspended with pay pending an investigation. During a recorded video meeting on May 2, 2025, she denied attempting to steal the items. She also refused to turn on her camera. At one point, she told a senior manager, “I hope you can sleep at night,” adding in Dutch, “You know exactly what you are doing. You know it exactly.”
Under Armour dismissed her days later, stating she had “attempted to steal products from the company” and that her “various contradictory statements are implausible.” The company cited internal rules that explicitly state, “Under Armour does not allow teammate merchandise holds at any time of year, no matter the length or reason,” and require alarm tags on items priced from 49.99 euros upward.
The former employee sued. She sought a compensation payment of 53,699.63 euros, a transition payment of 9,848.68 euros, a fixed damages payment of 12,414.42 euros, an unpaid May 2025 salary, and payment for 665.5 overtime hours—totaling more than 80,000 euros. She accepted that she would not return to the job and said she now earns more teaching children, both as an employee and as a freelancer.
The court rejected all her claims. The judge ruled that, even if she did not intend to steal the bag herself, her behavior, inconsistent explanations, emails, and hostile conduct were enough to warrant dismissal.
The court also ordered her to repay 3,209.61 euros in net salary for May 2025 that Under Armour accidentally paid after she was laid off. All claims for overtime pay were denied due to lack of proof that the hours had been approved.
“The suspicion of attempted theft was justified,” the court concluded, adding that Under Armour “could no longer reasonably be required to continue the employment relationship.”
