Nexperia: Dutch court upholds suspension of Wing’s alleged “proxy”

Shortly before Christmas, a Dutch district court rendered a decision directly related to the ongoing crisis at Nexperia. In summary proceedings, a Chinese employee sought reinstatement after having been placed on garden leave. He argued that the measure amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of race. Nexperia, by contrast, maintained that the employee acted as a proxy for the suspended CEO Wing and that his position had become untenable in light of the governance crisis.

Background

In October 2025, Nexperia became the subject of regulatory intervention. Following U.S. sanctions measures, attempts by Wing to tighten his grip on the European part of Nexperia, and the alleged intended transfer of production assets to China, Minister Karremans “froze” the situation pursuant to the Emergency Act on the Availability of Goods (Wet beschikbaarheid goederen). One day later, the Enterprise Chamber suspended Wing as director, temporarily transferred the shares to an independent administrator, and appointed a new independent interim director.

Notice of dismissal of the “proxy”

Less than a week later, the employee was informed that his employment contract would be terminated. At the same time, he was placed on ‘non-active’ status: his email access was revoked and he was denied access to the office. His lawyer requested that he be allowed to resume his contractual duties, but Nexperia refused. The employee subsequently initiated summary proceedings.

The employee’s claim

The employee argued that both the announced dismissal and the suspension were unlawful, as there was no – let alone a compelling – ground for such measures. In addition, he claimed that he was subjected to discrimination. Not only he, but also two other Chinese employees had been dismissed, while no non-Chinese employees were terminated. He further argued that dismissal would force him to return to China, as his residence permit for the Netherlands as a highly skilled migrant was tied to his employment.

Nexperia’s Position

According to Nexperia, immediate intervention was both necessary and justified. Over the past years, the employee had allegedly acted as a spokesperson and proxy for the (indirect) controlling shareholder and the suspended CEO, Wing. In his role as Head of Talent Acquisition, he was said to have dismissed several senior colleagues who had openly criticised the direction Wing was pursuing with Nexperia. Within the organisation, the employee was widely regarded as Wing’s right-hand man. His return would cause unacceptable internal and external disruption, as it could create (or reinforce) the perception that Wing still effectively controlled the company.

Applicable legal framework

The court noted that placing an employee on non-active status is a far-reaching measure and therefore requires compelling circumstances. The assessment is based on the principle of good employership (Article 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code), taking into account, inter alia, the nature of the employee’s position, his role within the organisation, and the specific circumstances of the case. In addition, the interim relief judge must assess whether it is plausible that a reasonable ground for termination would be established in subsequent (or impending) dismissal proceedings.

The court’s ruling

The court found that this threshold was met. It held that Nexperia was facing an “extremely exceptional situation”. The judge concluded that the employee had played a central role in Wing’s intention to remove critical key figures from the organisation. Given his position, the employee could reasonably be expected to exercise independent judgment and refrain from implementing decisions that were manifestly detrimental to the company.

Maintenance of the measure

Although the court did not establish with certainty that the employee was in fact a proxy for Wing, the perception of such a role was sufficient to justify the suspension. The court further considered it likely that termination would be granted in subsequent proceedings. Nexperia’s interest in restoring calm- both internally and externally – and in temporarily distancing itself from individuals closely associated with the suspended CEO outweighed the employee’s interest in immediate reinstatement. In this context, it was also relevant that the employee’s salary continued to be paid.

Discrimination and residence status

The subdistrict court also rejected the arguments relating to discrimination and residence status. There was no prima facie evidence of discrimination based on origin or race: a plausible, non-discriminatory explanation existed in the employee’s close association with the suspended CEO and the need to restore stability, particularly since it emerged during the proceedings that non-Chinese employees in comparable positions had also left the company. Furthermore, placement on non-active status does not immediately jeopardise a residence permit and therefore does not constitute a special circumstance warranting reinstatement.

Conclusion

The ruling illustrates that Wing’s influence over Nexperia was not limited to formal governance powers but extended to de facto control on the work floor. With the suspension of this employee, that influence has – at least for the time being – been effectively neutralised.