OD FLASH | Under the principle of equal treatment, teleworking employees are entitled to meal vouchers in the same way as on-site employees.

Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 8 October 2025 – No. 24-12.373 • Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 8 October 2025 – No. 24-10.566 :  

Although Article L.1222-9 of the Labour Code expressly states that “teleworkers are entitled to the same rights as employees who perform their work on the company’s premises”, uncertainty remained regarding the allocation of meal vouchers to teleworkers.

There was debate among the trial judges: while some advocated equal treatment for all employees ( CA Versailles, 23 Nov. 2023, no. 22/01633 ), others considered that teleworking employees were in a different situation from those working on site and were not exposed to the costs of eating out. ( CA Paris, 4 April 2024, no. 23/03082 )

In both cases, the High Court put an end to the debate by applying the principle of equal treatment.

       In the first case, an employee sought payment of a sum corresponding to the employer’s contribution to meal vouchers for the Covid-19 period during which he had worked from home. While the employer argued that the claimant’s situation differed from that of employees working on site, the Social Chamber, on the basis of Articles L.3262-1 and R.3262-7 of the Labour Code, considered that “the only condition for obtaining meal vouchers is that the employee’s meal be included in their daily schedule“. Thus, teleworking cannot justify the withdrawal of this benefit.  The Social Chamber upheld the decision of the Meaux Labour Court ordering the employer to pay the teleworking employee back pay in respect of meal vouchers.

      In the second case, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the employer had closed the company restaurant, placed all staff on telework and suspended the granting of meal vouchers. The latter measure also affected mobile employees who had previously benefited from them under a customary practice. The Court of Cassation then found that, since the practice in question had not been terminated, the employer could not suspend the benefit of meal vouchers solely on the grounds that employees were working from home. It then noted that, during a period of widespread teleworking and closure of the company restaurant, all employees were in the same situation with regard to meals. No distinction could therefore be made between them on the basis of their previous situation: refusing meal vouchers to certain employees would amount to a violation of the principle of equal treatment.

However, according to the Ministry of Labour, meal vouchers are a benefit granted by the employer that is not the result of any legal obligation. Thus, the right to meal vouchers is not an automatic right for teleworkers, but applies only when on-site employees benefit from them.