Staffing Agency Discrimination: What Dutch Tests Show and What to Do When a Client Asks

If your branches take orders from many clients every week, see how Radius Hire works for staffing agencies.

How often do Dutch agencies go along with a discriminatory request?

In tests run in 2018 and 2019, between 13% and 47% did.

In a broadcast on 29 January 2018, the consumer programme Radar reported that its journalists, posing as a company looking for temporary staff, had phoned 78 agencies, mentioned bad experiences with Moroccan, Surinamese or Turkish workers and asked the agency to take that into account. The programme reported that 47% agreed, 14% left the decision to the client, 36% refused and 3% gave no decision (Radar, 29 January 2018). The State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment told Parliament that almost half of the 78 agency branches had cooperated (Kamerstuk 29 544, nr. 822, 1 May 2018).

In spring 2019 the Inspectie SZW, now the Netherlands Labour Authority, commissioned a mystery calling study among agencies that were not members of the two main sector associations, the ABU and the NBBU. Callers made 467 calls between 3 April and 6 May 2019, drawn from the 19,961 such agencies identified for the study, and asked the agency to take a bad experience with a temporary worker of foreign origin into account. In the full sample, 40% of the requests were honoured and 60% were refused (Inspectie SZW, 11 July 2019).

When the State Secretary reported that pilot to Parliament, the letter also reported mystery calls the two associations had run among their own members: 13% went along with the request among ABU members and 26% among NBBU members (Kamerstuk 29 544, nr. 923, 11 July 2019). The letter gives no sample sizes or methods for those two studies.

Sources: Radar (2018); Kamerstuk 29 544, nrs. 822 and 923; Inspectie SZW (2019). Methods and groups differ, so do not compare the figures with each other.

The most useful detail for an agency sits inside the 2019 report. Among the 278 staff who refused, only 34% said on their own that the request was against the law, 30% asked why the client wanted it, and 91% did not first check with a manager (Inspectie SZW, 2019). Our reading: most refusals depended on the person who happened to pick up the phone, not on a shared procedure.

What these tests do not show. How agencies respond today: the latest public test we found is from 2019. What happened to real candidates: a test call is not a placement. Anything about age, sex or religion: every test concerned origin. The member studies were run by the associations themselves, without published methods.

What does Dutch equal treatment law say about job placement?

It bans discrimination in job placement and counts an instruction to discriminate as discrimination.

The Equal Treatment Act (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling, AWGB) defines the distinction it prohibits (onderscheid) as direct and indirect distinction "alsmede de opdracht daartoe", which means it includes the instruction to make that distinction (Article 1(1)(a)). The protected grounds are religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and civil status, and direct distinction on grounds of sex includes pregnancy (Article 1(1)(b) and 1(3)). Article 5(1) prohibits discrimination in offering a job and filling a vacancy, in job placement (arbeidsbemiddeling), and in entering into an employment relationship, among other steps (AWGB, version in force from 1 January 2026). The Labour Inspectorate's 2019 report states plainly that discriminating on origin is prohibited by law (Inspectie SZW, 2019).

Age has its own act with the same structure. The Wet gelijke behandeling op grond van leeftijd bij de arbeid (WGBL) also includes the instruction to discriminate (Article 1), covers job placement (Article 3) and allows age distinctions only on limited grounds, such as objective justification (Article 7(1)) (WGBL).

The AWGB also explains why some requests behind a bad instruction can be lawful. A rule that looks neutral but particularly affects people of one group, such as a language requirement, is indirect discrimination unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of reaching that aim are appropriate and necessary (Article 1(1)(c) and Article 2(1)). That is the difference between "preferably Dutch" and "can follow spoken safety instructions in Dutch": the first is about who the person is; the second can be tested against what the work needs.

Discrimination in business is also a criminal matter. The Criminal Code makes it an offence to discriminate against people in the course of a profession or business because of their race, religion, belief, sex or sexual orientation (Article 429quater), and treats intentional race discrimination in business as a more serious offence (Article 137g) (Wetboek van Strafrecht).

On the text of these laws, both the client who gives the instruction and the agency that carries it out fall inside the prohibition. How responsibility is shared in a particular case is a question for your lawyer.

Is there a duty to report a discriminatory request? We found none in force on 21 October 2026. An earlier bill, the Wet toezicht gelijke kansen bij werving en selectie (35673), would have required employers and intermediaries to have a way of working aimed at equal chances in recruitment, under Labour Inspectorate supervision, and included a duty for intermediaries to report discriminatory requests. The Senate rejected it on 26 March 2024 by 38 votes to 37 (Eerste Kamer, 26 March 2024; bill page). A new private member's bill (36908) was submitted on 3 March 2026. The text published that day applies to employers with more than 25 employees and to intermediaries, and contains no reporting duty (Kamerstuk 36 908, nr. 2). In its advice of 29 April 2026, published on 4 May 2026, the Advisory Division of the Council of State recommended that the House not consider the bill unless it is amended, and noted that the earlier reporting duty for intermediaries had been dropped (Raad van State, W12.26.00058/III). On 21 October 2026 the bill was still before the House of Representatives and was not law (Eerste Kamer, 36908).

Sector rules apply on top of the law. After the 2018 broadcast, the State Secretary reported that the ABU would add a membership requirement, run periodic mystery calls through an independent bureau and set up a reporting point, and that the NBBU required members to run their business in a way aimed at preventing discrimination and checked this (Kamerstuk 29 544, nr. 822). If your agency belongs to an association or has signed a voluntary recruitment code, check its current rules too.

Why is a client preference not a job requirement?

A preference describes who the candidate is, not what the work needs.

This section is Radius Hire's view. A requirement is something a candidate can show: a valid reach truck certificate, availability for a 06:00 start in Venray, the ability to lift cartons through a full shift, the level of Dutch needed to follow a safety briefing. Each can be asked, checked and recorded the same way for every candidate. A preference about origin, nationality, age or sex is different: no answer, document or work record can satisfy it, because it is not about the work.

That is why the intake call matters more than any later step. Once a preference enters the job order, every later step can be applied consistently and still be unfair, because it works through a list filtered before anyone was assessed. Screening tools do not fix this. A tool applies the requirements it is given, which is one reason we argue that no hiring tool removes bias, including ours.

Discriminatory requests are often indirect. Illustrative examples of phrasing that should make an intercedent stop and ask what the work needs:

What should an intercedent say on the call?

Ask about the work, decline once and plainly, then confirm in writing.

A short, fixed script means nobody has to improvise under pressure, and it keeps the call on the order rather than on a lecture. Illustrative example of a three step script:

If the client insists, end the call politely, log it and escalate the same day to the branch manager, who decides whether the agency accepts the order on job terms only. Do not agree to anything "off the record", such as quietly sending a filtered shortlist.

How do you turn a client's wish into job requirements?

Find the need behind the wish, then write that need down instead.

Illustrative example: common client phrasings, the possible need behind them, and a requirement every candidate can be checked against in the same way.

Two cautions. A language level or physical task must reflect what the work actually needs; a level set higher than that can itself disadvantage a group. And keep the written order as the only list candidates are screened against: side notes in an email undo the work.

What should the agency record and measure?

Log every request you change or refuse, and track three numbers each quarter.

A short log protects the intercedent, shows where pressure comes from and answers a client, candidate or auditor who asks how an order was handled. Record for each case:

The log names people, so treat it as personal data: keep it factual, limit who can read it and set how long it is kept.

Then track three numbers:

If you want a simple way to start, audit one role in one hour and include the intake call in the review.

How can agency owners prevent staffing agency discrimination?

A written policy, a named escalation route and a clause in client terms.

Our view of what makes the script hold: a one page refusal policy every new intercedent reads in week one; a named person to escalate to, with same day escalation treated as normal; a line in client terms that orders are filled against written requirements tied to the job; and a monthly log review with branch managers, so repeat clients are handled at account level.

Refusing can cost an order. But a client who insists on excluding a group is asking the agency to carry legal and reputational risk on the client's behalf, and test calls by journalists and inspectors have happened before.

Conclusion: the fix belongs at intake

The Dutch tests are old and not directly comparable, but they point the same way: when a client asked, a large share of agencies went along, and many refusals were improvised. The law already prohibits discrimination in job placement and counts the instruction itself as discrimination. The answer can be trained in a week: ask what the work needs, decline once, confirm in writing, log the call and escalate if the client insists.

How Radius helps

Radius Hire is an AI hiring platform for frontline roles in the Netherlands, built for employers and staffing agencies. Your team sets the requirements for each role, every applicant answers the same structured questions in the AI Interviewer, and Match shows the answer behind each requirement. Radius never rejects a candidate on its own; a recruiter reviews the evidence and makes every hiring decision. Radius works from the requirements your team writes, so the intake work in this article still comes first. See Radius for staffing agencies.