French employment law - TT: Employees working remotely are entitled to meal vouchers if their colleagues working on-site receive them! (Cass. Soc. 8 Oct. 2025, 24-12.373 and 24-10.566)

In a decision dated October 8, 2025 (24-12.373) published in the Bulletin, the Court of Cassation affirmed that employees working remotely are entitled to meal vouchers in the same way as their colleagues working on the company's premises.

Under Article L. 1222-9 III, paragraph 1, of the Labor Code, teleworkers have the same rights as employees working on the company's premises. The Court of Cassation affirms that the combination of this text and Articles L. 3262-1, paragraph 1, and R. 3262-7 of the French Labor Code means that an employer cannot refuse to grant meal vouchers to employees solely on the grounds that they work remotely.

This decision must be approved.

1) Analysis

This is the first time, to our knowledge, that the Court of Cassation has ruled on a teleworker's right to meal vouchers.

The combination of Articles L. 3262-1, paragraph 1, and R. 3262-7 of the French Labor Code means that an employer cannot refuse to grant this benefit to employees solely on the grounds that they work remotely.

This decision must be approved. In another judgment of October 8, 2025 (24-10.566), the Court of Cassation affirms that in application of the principle of equal treatment, if measures can be reserved for certain employees, it is on the condition that all those placed in an identical situation, with regard to the advantage in question, have the possibility of benefiting from it, unless the difference in treatment is justified by objective and relevant reasons and the rules determining the conditions of eligibility for the measure are previously defined and verifiable. The judgment must be approved, which, firstly, notes the existence of a custom within the company relating to the allocation of meal vouchers to employees who did not have access, due to their geographical distance or the itinerant nature of their duties, to the company restaurant, holds that this advantage could not, in the absence of denunciation, be suspended when employees were placed on telework, then noting that from March 2020, all employees were placed on telework and that the company restaurant was closed, deduces that all employees were in an identical situation with regard to the advantage linked to catering and that no difference could be made between them in consideration of their previous situation without undermining the principle of equal treatment

Source :

. cass. soc. 8 oct. 2025, 24-12.373

https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/68e5fac9a28a47f8aa01639f

. cass. soc. 8 oct. 2025, 24-10.566

https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/68e5facaa28a47f8aa0163a1

. Télétravail : droit du salarié à une indemnité de sujétion + prescription de 2 ans de cette indemnité (cass. soc. 19 mars 2025, n° 22-17.315)

https://www.legavox.fr/blog/frederic-chhum-avocats/teletravail-droit-salarie-indemnite-sujetion-37393.htm

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et ancien membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: : 45, Rue Saint Etienne 59000 Lille – Ligne directe +(33) 03.20.57.53.24