Do revenge quitters have to provide reasonable notice?
The year 2025 continues to witness the evolution of various trends within the labor market. While phenomena such as “Quiet quitting” and “loud quitting” have not cooled down, a new trend of “revenge quitting” is beginning to attract substantial public attention, as this trend has been anticipated to gain significant traction this year by organizations such as Software Finder and Glassdoor. However, employees who choose to participate in the “revenge quitting” movement should be mindful of the potential legal implications that may arise from such actions.
According to Bryan Robinson, Ph.D. and contributor to Forbes, revenge quitting describes the act of employees abruptly leaving their jobs in response to negative experiences such as lack of recognition, burnout, or disengagement with workplace culture. It can be seen as a dramatic exit, resulting in negative outcomes for both the employee and the employer due to the employee’s revenge-driven actions.
In a 2025 survey of 1,007 full-time employees conducted by Software Finder, 17 per cent of employees have already left their jobs as a form of revenge quitting and 28 per cent of full-time employees expect this trend to emerge within their workplaces by 2025. Hybrid employees appear to be the most likely to anticipate such occurrences, with 31 per cent expressing this expectation. Furthermore, four per cent of full-time employees have explicitly planned to quit their jobs as an act of retaliation by 2025. The primary drivers of this trend include workplace dissatisfaction stemming from: (i) insufficient or stagnant compensation, (ii) a lack of recognition or appreciation, and (iii) limited opportunities for career development.
It is also essential to recognize the influence of Generation Z, a demographic that continues to reshape workplace dynamics. According to psychologist Mark Travers of the mental health and wellness website Therapytips.org, Gen Z employees are more likely to report feeling undervalued, underappreciated, and lacking in work-life balance, which will significantly contribute to the rise of revenge quitting.
Although revenge quitting is gaining popularity among employees as a form of protest or expression of dissatisfaction, from a legal standpoint, this trend can present considerable risks, especially when employees are not well-versed in applicable labor laws.
A defining characteristic of revenge quitting is its abrupt nature. It would be understandable if employees chose to resign due to excessive pressure. However, abruptly leaving a job without following legal procedures can lead to various legal complications.
The employment relationship is built on mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. However, due to the specific nature of labor relations and their impact on both parties, many legal systems do not permit unilateral termination of employment without adherence to certain rules. Chief among these is the requirement for a notice period, which is typically mandated by law or by contract. Failure to comply with the notice period, regardless of which party initiates the termination, may result in legal consequences. Accordingly, employees who engage in revenge quitting by resigning abruptly and without proper notice may be found in breach of legal obligations, potentially leading to financial or reputational liabilities.
In Ireland, for example, under the terms of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973-2005, an employee or employer who intends to terminate a contract of employment must provide the other party with specified minimum notice. Employees who have been in continuous employment for at least 13 weeks are obliged to provide their employer with one week’s notice of termination of employment. If a greater amount of notice is specified in the employee’s contract of employment, then this notice must be given.
In UAE, the Article 43 of the Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021 Regarding the Regulation of Employment Relationships provides that unless cases where the employee quits work without notice under Article 45, either party to the employment contract may terminate the contract for any legitimate reason, provided that the other party is notified in writing and work shall be performed during the notice period agreed upon in the contract, provided that such period is not less than 30 days and not more than 90 days. The party who did not abide by the notice period shall pay to the other party compensation, which is called notice period allowance, even if the absence of notification does not cause damage to the other party and the compensation shall be equal to the employee’s wage for the full notice period or the remaining part thereof.
In Australia, s. 117 of the Fair Work Act, an employee’s award, enterprise agreement, other registered agreement or employment contract may set out how much notice (if any) they need to give when they resign. If an employee’s contract is silent about notice, or the employee doesn’t have a written contract, the employee might need to give their employer reasonable notice.
In China, Article 37 of its Labor Contract Law stipulates that an employee may have the labor contract revoked by giving a written notification to the employing unit 30 days in advance (three days for probationary employees). Where the employer is at fault according to the law as failing to provide occupational protection or working conditions as agreed upon in the labor contract; failing to pay labor remuneration on time and in full,..., the employee is entitled to immediately terminate the employment by giving the employer notice. Especially, if an employing unit forces a person to work by resorting to violence, intimidation or illegal restriction of personal freedom, or if it gives instructions in violation of rules and regulations or gives peremptory orders to the employee to perform hazardous operations, which endanger his personal safety, the latter may revoke the labor contract forthwith without notifying the employing unit of the matter in advance. For consequences, the Article 90 of the Law provides that where an employee revokes the labor contract in violation of the provisions of this Law or breaches the confidentiality obligation or competition restriction stipulated in the labor contract, thus causing losses to the employing unit, he shall be liable for compensation.
In Vietnam, Article 35 of the Labor Code permits employees to unilaterally terminate their labor contracts, but certain notice requirements must be met at least: 45 days for employees working under an indefinite-term labor contract; 30 days for employees under a fixed-term labor contract with a duration of 12 to 36 months; three working days for employees under a fixed-term labor contract of less than 12 months. For specific industries, occupations, and jobs such as aviation staff or crew members, the notice period is subject to regulations established by the government. However, in circumstances outlined in Clause 2, Article 35 of the Labor Code such as sexual harassment, unpaid wages, or assignment to inappropriate roles or locations, employees have the right to unilaterally terminate their labor contracts without providing prior notice.
If an employee fails to adhere to the required notice period, they will be considered to have illegally terminated the contract. In such cases, as per Article 40 of the Labor Code, the employee may face the following legal consequences:
Ineligibility for severance allowances.
Obligation to compensate the employer for half a month's salary as stipulated in the labor contract, along with payment for the days of absence without notice.
Responsibility for reimbursing the employer for training costs, as outlined in Article 62 of the Labor Code.
Although it may seem unlikely, some employers in practice still pursue legal action against employees who arbitrarily terminate their contracts. Vietnamese court judgements serve as evidence of this ongoing reality.
Revenge quitting is not merely a passing trend but rather a reflection of a workforce increasingly unwilling to silently endure toxic work environments. It can be likened to a time bomb, ready to explode when employees’ tolerance reaches its limit. To mitigate the impact of this trend, it is essential for both employers and employees to address these concerns proactively.
From the employer’s perspective, improvements in welfare policies and workplace culture are crucial. However, equally important is fostering a genuine sense of care for employees’ well-being. In turn, employees must also take the initiative to communicate their concerns, ensuring that employers are aware of their feelings and frustrations. Nevertheless, should situations escalate beyond the point of tolerance, a peaceful resolution is always preferable to revenge quitting, considering the potential legal risks and consequences employees may face.
Huy Nguyen is an Associate at Apolat Legal in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, focusing on civil, labour, and commercial business.
