World · Europe · 2 hrs ago
French court upholds dismissal over false business meal expenses
A French sales manager claimed seven private-club visits as business meals, putting €303 in expenses on his claims.
His company’s accounting team checked the establishment after seeing its name repeatedly and found it was a private club.
A €25 claim matched the club’s entry price for a single man during weekday working hours.
The manager acknowledged visiting during work but said he went to eat at the club’s restaurant, and he challenged his dismissal.
An appeals court upheld his dismissal for serious misconduct, overturning an earlier decision that had ordered the company to pay him €45,000.
The court’s decision means he is not entitled to those damages, and the dismissal stands.
A court upheld the dismissal of a sales manager for gross misconduct after he claimed visits to a libertine club as business meals.
The employer’s accounting team found that a claimed €25 meal matched the club’s weekday entry price for a man alone.
The manager said he had gone to the club’s restaurant with clients, but a client described at least one visit as private.
He initially won €45,000 in damages, but the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal reversed that ruling.
The reports disagree on when the events and court rulings took place: two give dates in 2025–2026, while Cadremploi gives dates from 2010–2019.
- Who
- A sales manager identified as Thomas, a pseudonym in the reports.
- What
- His employer dismissed him for gross misconduct after he claimed club visits as business meals. An appeal court upheld the dismissal.
- When
- The reports disagree: two say the visits took place from December 2025 to March 2026; Cadremploi says December 2010 to March 2011.
- Where
- At a libertine club in the Lyon region, according to Cadremploi; the appeal court was in Aix-en-Provence.
- Why
- The employer said the manager had claimed private expenses as business costs repeatedly and without its knowledge.
The employer
Thomas
Expenses
The employer
The visits were private outings charged to the employer as business meals.
Thomas
He said he went to the club’s restaurant with clients.
Dismissal
The employer
Repeatedly charging personal expenses made it impossible to continue the employment contract.
Thomas
He challenged the dismissal and said the establishment had a restaurant.
Cadremploi says Thomas visited the club seven times and submitted expense claims totalling €303; the other reports give December 2025–March 2026.
Cadremploi says Thomas was called to a preliminary dismissal meeting and suspended as a precaution.
Cadremploi says the company dismissed Thomas for gross misconduct.
A court ruled in Thomas’s favour and ordered the employer to pay €45,000 in damages, according to Cadremploi.
The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, according to Cadremploi; TF1 Info also reports that the appeal court upheld it but gives no date.
Cadremploi says the Court of Cassation rejected Thomas’s final appeal.
- Expense claims
- Seven claims totalling €303, according to all three reports
- Claimed meal amount
- €25, matching the weekday entry price for a man alone, according to the reports
- First ruling
- €45,000 in damages awarded to Thomas
- Appeal court
- Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal
- Final appeal
- Court of Cassation rejected the appeal on 23 January 2019, according to Cadremploi
3 sources
Il avait l'habitude de déclarer 25 euros par déjeuner professionnel : son employeur découvre qu'il s'agit du prix d'entrée du club libertin où il se rend sur son temps de travail
Le montant total de la facture est de 303 euros... : Un employé se rend dans un club libertin sur ses heures de travail et fait passer ses sorties en notes de frais
Il faisait passer ses sorties en club libertin en notes de frais : la justice valide son licenciement pour faute grave
What people are saying
Given the nature of the expenses incurred at this club, the employee could not have been unaware that they were not business expenses.
The repeated nature of the acts, the amounts involved, but also the employee’s role must be taken into account.