Homeworking has recently been in the news, particularly with some companies requiring more on-site work and a significant decline in the amount of time spent homeworking.

The French Supreme Court recently ruled on  a related  issue, namely the payment of a home occupancy allowance, which seems unlikely to encourage companies to promote homeworking.

Below is a quick reminder of the legal position on costs incurred by employers for employees working from home:

  • Coverage of homeworkers’ professional expenses:

The French Labour Code does not expressly require employers to cover these expenses.

However, we believe that employers have responsibility for these costs based on the following rules resulting from both the ANI (national interprofessional agreements) and case law:

– The coverage of expenses resulting from homeworking was expressly provided for in the ANI which specify that a company must cover expenses incurred by employees for the purposes of their professional activity and in the interest of the company, after validation by the employer.

– The French Labour Code further stipulates that “homeworkers have the same rights as employees who perform their work on the company’s premises, which implies that their professional expenses must be covered.”

Case law has also established the general principle of the obligation for the employer to cover expenses incurred by employees in the course of their duties and in the interests of the company, which should also cover homeworkers.

  • Meal vouchers

The allocation of meal vouchers to homeworkers has not been expressly decided by case law, and decisions on this matter are currently inconsistent.

In view of the principle of equal treatment with other employees of the company, some decisions have considered that homeworkers are entitled to meal vouchers for each day worked during which a meal is included in their working hours.
The Ministry of Labour also considers that teleworkers are entitled to meal vouchers in the same way as employees who do not work from home.

Conversely, other decisions have held that homeworkers may be excluded from receiving meal vouchers on the grounds that they are not in a situation comparable to that of on-site workers who do not have access to a company restaurant. In these decisions, the court considered that the purpose of meal vouchers was to enable employees to cover the additional cost of eating out, which was not the case for meals taken at home.

We will therefore have to wait for a ruling from the French Supreme Court to have a final decision on the matter.

  • Compensation for use of the employee’s home

Recent case law has held that, if no professional premises are made available to an employee who works at home they must be compensated for this particular constraint, and the employer must pay compensation for the occupation of the home. An employer who does not provide the employee with a space to carry out administrative tasks and store equipment must compensate the employee for the inconvenience and costs associated with using their personal home for professional purposes. It is not necessary for the employer to require that the work be carried out at home; it is sufficient that the performance of tasks at home (e.g. administrative tasks for sales representatives) is not the result of the employees’ choice but a requirement that they devote themselves to their work in good conditions.

In a ruling on 19 March 2025, the French Supreme Court appears to have extended the granting of occupancy compensation to homeworkers, provided that professional premises are not actually made available to them or that it has been agreed that the work will be carried out at home.

The very broad wording used by the French Supreme Court  for the right to compensation for use of the home indicates that this compensation is now available in all situations of agreed homeworking, whether the request comes from the employer or the employee.

Nevertheless, it is advisable to remain cautious about these decisions and to wait for further rulings from the French Supreme Court to confirm their scope or clarify their scope of application.

In the meantime, employers may consider it prudent to pay all homeworking employees a home occupancy allowance, even if it is a small amount, in order to limit the risk of claims.