Filing a discrimination complaint: how the burden of proof works in practice

In a short video from Omroep AfroNet, a staff member at an organisation that handles discrimination complaints explains which routes are open and why evidence is often the hardest part. A case from Groningen involving social housing shows what a complaint can achieve.

Anyone who wants to file a discrimination complaint quickly runs into one question: how do you prove what happened? In a short video from Omroep AfroNet, a staff member at an organisation that handles discrimination complaints explains how this works in practice. The video was published on 21 October 2026, and the guest is not named in the title or description.

The conversation covers the burden of proof, the legal routes available and the outcome of a case before the College voor de Rechten van de Mens. Omroep AfroNet made the video as part of a longer conversation about complaint handling, and the questions are asked by a host who is neither shown on screen nor named in the description.

Evidence is almost always the stumbling block

The guest says that in discrimination cases, evidence is almost always the bottleneck. When someone reports an incident, the organisation first talks to the person who experienced the discrimination. Together they look at what happened and what options there are.

According to the guest, there are several areas of law where you can turn. One of them is equal treatment legislation. It uses a different standard of proof than criminal law, where stronger evidence is required.

In practice, the organisation also asks the other party for an explanation. What do they say happened? Sometimes the answer gives the organisation something to take the case further, for example to the College voor de Rechten van de Mens, which gives its opinion on the basis of equal treatment legislation.

A case from Groningen

To illustrate this, the guest describes a specific case. It was not handled by his own organisation but by colleagues in Groningen. It involved a single Syrian man who wanted to be considered for a social housing unit. According to the account, he was first on the list.

The apartment complex had previously had problems with quality of life, caused by disturbances from a resident with drug problems. The municipality and neighbours therefore preferred a mother with a child in the home. A meeting had been scheduled, but the man was called and told it was cancelled. He said himself that his origin came up during that call, and that the landlord wanted a single mother or a family.

The colleagues wrote to the housing corporation asking how it saw the course of events. According to the guest, the corporation then confirmed that it wanted a woman, preferably with a child, in the home. That gave the organisation something to work with and to start proceedings before the College.

The guest says that at the hearing the corporation first argued that the man himself had said he no longer wanted the home. According to him, the complaint made it clear that it was the corporation's choice that the allocation did not go ahead. A detailed response from the corporation cannot be heard in the video, and its name is not given.

What the opinion means

According to the guest, the College concluded that prohibited discrimination had taken place on the grounds of marital status and sex. Origin could not be proven, because it had only been mentioned by phone and was not confirmed anywhere. The opinion will be published online, and hearings are public.

The guest admits you can wonder what such an opinion achieves, since it is not legally binding. Still, he sees possibilities. Under the Wet goed verhuurderschap, a municipality can use such an opinion to impose administrative enforcement orders, administrative fines or warnings.

Criminal law is also a route, the guest says. There is an article that prohibits discrimination in the exercise of an office, profession or business, in two variants. The clip ends in the middle of the explanation of those variants, so this video says no more about them.

Background

According to the College voor de Rechten van de Mens itself, an opinion is not legally binding, but it does carry authority. The College cannot impose a sanction or damages, and a judge must take the opinion into account. The College also does not handle every situation: that depends on the ground and the area involved.

On the burden of proof, the law firm Law & More writes that someone complaining about unequal pay only needs to present facts that suggest discrimination. The employer must then prove that the law was not broken. That example concerns employment, but it shows that in equal treatment cases the burden of proof does not rest entirely on the complainant.

According to Dirkzwager Advocaten, the Wet goed verhuurderschap has applied since 1 July 2023. Municipalities can impose an administrative fine of up to €22,500 for violations. Discrimination in renting falls under the rules, the national government writes on Volkshuisvesting Nederland. The criminal law article the guest refers to is article 429quater of the Wetboek van Strafrecht. It punishes discrimination in the exercise of an office, profession or business on grounds of race, religion, belief, sex or sexual orientation, with detention of up to two months or a third-category fine.

You can watch the full video on the channels of Omroep AfroNet.

Bronnen

• Omroep AfroNet op YouTube: de video
• College voor de Rechten van de Mens: Wat zegt de wet over discriminatie?
• Law & More: Gelijke beloning en inclusiebeleid
• Dirkzwager: Wet goed verhuurderschap
• Volkshuisvesting Nederland: Landelijke regels van goed verhuurderschap
• Wetten.overheid.nl: Artikel 429quater Wetboek van Strafrecht