A foreign founder can create a French company and hire a first employee who works mainly from home, but the arrangement should be designed as a French employment system rather than treated as an informal remote-working promise. The employee may work from a bedroom, a dedicated office or another declared private location; the legal questions remain the same: is the work telework, how was it agreed, who supplies the equipment, who pays the additional costs, how are working hours controlled, and what evidence will be available if an accident or payroll dispute occurs? French law gives the teleworker the same rights as an employee working at the company’s premises. It also attaches practical consequences to the employer’s choice of a home office: a work accident may be presumed at the telework location, personal data must be protected, and reimbursement rules must be documented. This article addresses a French company employing a person who works in France. It does not advise an individual on moving to France, immigration status or personal tax residence, and it does not replace advice on a foreign company employing someone directly without a French entity. The objective is to give an overseas founder a usable launch plan: classify the arrangement, document it, budget it, operate it, and preserve proof.
For the wider corporate framework, see our French company and business law resource for international founders.
I. Can a French company organise home working for its first employee?
A. When does French law classify the arrangement as telework and what must the employer document?
The first question is not whether the founder uses the English words “work from home”. It is whether the employee performs work outside the employer’s premises that could also have been performed there, voluntarily, through information and communication technology. That is the statutory definition of telework in Article L. 1222-9 of the French Labour Code. The same provision uses the exact wording “le télétravail désigne toute forme d’organisation du travail” and then covers work performed outside the employer’s premises using information and communication technologies. A laptop, cloud platform, video-conference system, customer-support application or secure remote desktop will usually make the classification straightforward.
The classification matters because a home office is not a legal vacuum. Article L. 1222-9 expressly states that a worker can be a teleworker from the date of hiring or later. A foreign-owned French SAS, meaning a société par actions simplifiée, or a French SARL, meaning a société à responsabilité limitée, can therefore recruit its first employee with a home-working arrangement already built into the employment relationship. The company does not need to wait until it has a large office, a second employee or an established French management team. It does need to make the arrangement coherent with the company’s registered activity, payroll process and actual supervision.
There are three possible documentation routes. First, the company may be covered by a collective agreement on telework. A collective agreement is a negotiated labour instrument applicable to the employer under the conditions of French labour law. Secondly, the employer may adopt a telework charter after consulting the CSE, the comité social et économique, which is the employee representative body where one is legally required and exists. Thirdly, when there is no collective agreement or charter, the employer and employee may agree to telework and formalise that agreement by any means. Article L. 1222-9 is important for a first employee because a very small company may not yet have a CSE, but the absence of a CSE does not justify leaving the terms unwritten.
For a founder abroad, the safest document is a written telework schedule attached to the employment contract or signed at the same time. It should identify the employee’s normal work location, the number of home-working days, the days or circumstances requiring presence at a company site, the process for changing the schedule, the permitted country and area of work, the equipment provided, the treatment of personal equipment, insurance responsibilities, expense approval, working-time records, contact hours, confidentiality, cybersecurity and reversibility. “Reversibility” means the conditions under which the company or employee can return to work at the company’s premises. It should not be left to a last-minute email after the relationship has become difficult.
The telework document should also state what happens during onboarding. A first employee may begin working from home before the founder has visited France or before a permanent office is operational. That can be lawful, but the company should record the delivery date of the laptop, the identity of the person who configured the accounts, the first day of work, the training given and the method used to check the home workstation. If the French company has an official registered address, a Kbis, meaning the official extract from the French company register, proves registration but does not prove that the employee’s home is a suitable work location. Conversely, the employee’s home address does not replace the company’s registered office or establish a new branch merely because work is performed there.
The written arrangement should distinguish occasional assistance from regular telework. An employee who answers one urgent message from home is not in the same operational position as an employee whose contract says that every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday are worked from home. The more regular the arrangement, the more important it is to state the work location, the contact hours and the method for recording work. A company should not rely on the employee’s calendar alone. It should keep the contract, the signed schedule, the charter or collective agreement if applicable, and amendments showing later changes.
Article L. 1222-9 requires the collective agreement or charter to cover the conditions for moving into telework and returning to work without telework, how the employee accepts the operating conditions, how working time or workload is controlled, and the hours during which the employer may usually contact the teleworker. Those are not decorative headings. A founder in New York, London or Singapore should convert them into operational rules using the company’s French time zone, not assume that an informal “always online” culture will be accepted. The company may coordinate internationally, but the French employment schedule, rest periods and workload controls must remain visible.
The statutory provision also protects the employee’s equal treatment. Article L. 1222-9 says the teleworker has the same rights as the employee who works at the company’s premises. The practical consequences include access to information, training, collective benefits and professional development on a basis that is not reduced simply because the worker is at home. If the company provides a meal benefit, office equipment or an internal opportunity to employees at the premises, the founder should document why a home worker is or is not eligible. A remote employee should not become invisible to the French payroll and HR process.
Article L. 1222-10 adds specific duties. It requires information about restrictions on using IT equipment, communication services and the sanctions for breach. It also gives the teleworker priority for a non-telework position corresponding to their qualifications and requires an annual interview covering working conditions and workload. The source text says the employer must “organiser chaque année un entretien”. For a first employee, that annual review can be a structured video meeting followed by a dated written record. It should address workload, hours, equipment, security incidents, isolation, training, travel and whether the arrangement still fits the role.
Exceptional telework is a separate route. Article L. 1222-11 allows telework to be treated as a necessary adjustment of the job in exceptional circumstances, including a threat of an epidemic or force majeure, to preserve business continuity and protect employees. That provision is not a general substitute for a normal telework policy. A founder should not describe an ordinary home-working arrangement as “exceptional” merely to avoid documenting it. If a sudden event requires remote work, the company should record the event, the instruction, the period, the equipment and the temporary rules, then return to the ordinary framework when the event ends.
Finally, separate the employee’s work location from the founder’s personal situation. This article assumes that the employee is lawfully working in France and that the French company is the employer. It does not determine the founder’s residence, the place of effective management, a permanent establishment of a foreign parent or the social-security position of a founder who personally works from another country. Those questions can arise at the same time, but merging them into the telework clause creates confusion. The contract should identify the employing legal entity, the French payroll contact and the declared work location with precision.
B. What must the first employer provide for health, security, working time and data protection?
Home working does not transfer the employer’s core prevention duties to the employee. Article L. 4121-1 of the French Labour Code states that the employer must take the measures necessary to ensure safety and protect the physical and mental health of workers. The source text begins “L’employeur prend les mesures nécessaires pour assurer la sécurité”. It identifies prevention, information and training, together with an organisation and means adapted to the circumstances. The fact that the founder is abroad, the team is small or the employee uses a private room does not remove those duties.
Article L. 4121-2 requires the employer to implement those measures using prevention principles: avoid risks, assess risks that cannot be avoided, address risks at source, adapt work to the person and give appropriate instructions. A sensible first-employee file should therefore contain a short remote-work risk assessment. It can cover screen and workstation ergonomics, electrical safety, manual handling, working hours, isolation, excessive workload, confidentiality, domestic interruptions and the procedure for reporting an incident. It should be proportionate to the role, but it must show that the company thought about the actual work rather than issuing a generic laptop.
That assessment does not give the company a right to inspect the employee’s private life. The home is a private place. Any request for photographs, a video tour, an electrical certificate or an on-site inspection should have a legitimate purpose, be limited to what is necessary and be handled with the employee’s privacy in mind. Article L. 1121-1 provides that restrictions on individual and collective rights must be justified by the task and proportionate to the aim pursued. Its exact wording includes “justifiées par la nature de la tâche à accomplir” and “proportionnées au but recherché”. A clause allowing unrestricted access to the home is likely to create more risk than it removes.
A recent decision makes the point especially clear. In the Cour de cassation’s Social Chamber judgment of 2 April 2025, appeal no. 23-22.158, the court examined compensation connected with a home used for professional work. The decision rejected a reasoning that treated the absence of an agreed telework arrangement and the provision of some equipment as enough to dismiss a claim relating to the professional use of the home. The practical lesson for a founder is not that every employee can charge a fixed rent. It is that the company should identify whether the employee is required to use the home, whether another work location is available and what costs or constraints result.
Equipment should normally be selected and supplied by the company. The schedule should list the laptop, screen, keyboard, headset, authentication device, telephone or softphone, software licences and any other tool necessary for the role. It should say who owns each item, who maintains it, what happens if it is lost or damaged, and how it must be returned. If the employee uses personal equipment, the arrangement should be exceptional or expressly agreed, with a security baseline and a reimbursement method. A foreign founder should not ask the employee to use a personal laptop for customer files merely because shipping equipment from abroad is inconvenient.
Information security should be designed around the data handled by the first employee. A sales employee may access customer identity data, payment information, confidential contracts or source code. The company should use multi-factor authentication, individual accounts, strong password management, encryption, automatic updates, access rights limited to the role, secure backups and a process for reporting loss or compromise. If the employee prints confidential material, the policy should address storage and destruction. If calls are made from a private room, the policy should address smart speakers, family access, screen visibility and public Wi-Fi. These are not only technical preferences; they are controls that help prove a reasonable organisation after an incident.
Employee monitoring must be transparent. Article L. 1222-4 of the Labour Code states that no personal information about an employee may be collected by a device that has not previously been brought to the employee’s attention. The exact source wording is “Aucune information concernant personnellement un salarié ne peut être collectée”. A time-tracking tool, keystroke logger, webcam check, screenshot system or location tracker should therefore have a defined purpose, prior information, limited access and a retention period. The founder should avoid equating activity indicators with working time. A person can read a contract, speak to a client or attend a meeting without producing keystrokes.
Working time needs its own process. Article L. 1222-9 requires a method for controlling working time or regulating workload and a contact window. Article L. 3171-4 provides that, in a dispute about the existence or number of hours worked, the employer supplies the judge with material capable of justifying the hours actually worked; the judge considers those elements together with the employee’s evidence. The source text says “l’employeur fournit au juge les éléments de nature à justifier les horaires effectivement réalisés”. The company should therefore use a reliable record of hours, workload reviews, leave records and contact boundaries, especially when the founder and employee work in different time zones.
A right-to-disconnect rule should be practical. It may identify ordinary contact hours, emergency exceptions, expected response times and the person to contact if the workload becomes excessive. It should not be drafted as a promise that the employee will answer every message from the foreign founder at any hour. A small French company can use a weekly planning meeting, an agreed status tool and an escalation channel. The written policy should explain how the employee raises an inability to meet a deadline and how the founder records the response.
Health monitoring and onboarding remain part of the French employment process. The employer should coordinate the appropriate occupational-health appointment, provide safety information and keep evidence of training. The employer’s registration with URSSAF, the Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales, and its payroll declarations do not disappear because the employee works at home. The DPAE, or déclaration préalable à l’embauche, is the prior hiring declaration, and the DSN, or déclaration sociale nominative, is the recurring payroll declaration. These acronyms describe separate compliance steps; none of them replaces a telework agreement or risk assessment.
Accidents require a clear reporting route. Article L. 1222-9 provides that an accident occurring at the place where telework is performed during professional activity is presumed to be a work accident. Article L. 411-1 of the Social Security Code defines a work accident as an accident occurring by reason of or in connection with work. Its exact wording includes “par le fait ou à l’occasion du travail”. The employee should know whom to notify, by what channel and within what time. The founder should preserve the schedule, messages, incident report, medical information received lawfully, witness details and any evidence of the time and place of the event.
The presumption is not an invitation to investigate the employee’s private life. It is a reason to have a neutral process. The company should not ask the employee to conceal a home accident or delay a declaration until the facts are “certain”. It should record what was reported, notify the relevant bodies through the payroll or HR process and take advice before contesting the work-related character. A home office can create evidence problems because there may be no colleague who saw the event. The absence of a colleague is not by itself proof that nothing happened.
The recent case law is useful for practical risk management. In the Social Chamber judgment of 13 November 2025, appeal no. 24-14.322, the Cour de cassation held that an employee’s use of the home falls within private life and that an employer cannot refuse medically recommended telework solely because the employee refused a home visit. The case involved an occupational-health recommendation, not an ordinary onboarding inspection, but the principle is highly relevant: health and safety management must be achieved through proportionate measures and the proper occupational-health process, not through an automatic right to enter the home.
A foreign founder should also consider continuity. If the only employee works from home and the founder holds all administrator passwords abroad, the company may be unable to operate when the founder is unavailable. The first-employee plan should name a backup contact, document access recovery, preserve corporate records and establish who can approve payroll, security containment and customer communications. This is a business-continuity issue with employment consequences: a system outage that forces work into personal accounts can create confidentiality, expense and evidence disputes at the same time.
II. Who pays for home-office costs and what happens if the arrangement fails?
A. Which equipment, internet, electricity and transport costs can be reimbursed and how should payroll evidence be kept?
The starting point is simple: costs incurred for the employee’s work and in the employer’s interest should not be shifted casually to the employee’s salary. The categories must then be separated. Equipment and software are usually easiest: the company buys them directly, keeps the invoice, records the asset and provides them to the employee. If the employee buys a necessary item with prior approval, the company should require an expense report, proof of payment, the business purpose and the decision to reimburse. A vague monthly supplement called “remote work” does not identify what it covers.
French administrative guidance recognises several telework-cost categories. The official Service Public Entreprendre page on the 2026 telework reimbursement scale identifies costs connected with materials, software, subscriptions and tools, as well as fixed and variable costs linked to making a private room available for professional use, adaptation of a specific room, IT equipment, connection and supplies. The page is useful for a founder because it separates the cost of the work tool from the cost of making a private place available. The reimbursement method should follow that distinction.
Article 6 of the 4 September 2025 Order on deductible professional expenses states that telework costs are charges specially inherent in the function or employment when the telework is governed by the employment contract, a collective agreement or an exceptional arrangement. The source text describes them as “des charges de caractère spécial inhérentes à la fonction ou à l’emploi”. It lists three broad groups: fixed and variable costs of making a private room available, adaptation of a specific room including furniture and IT equipment, and IT equipment, connection and miscellaneous supplies.
There are two broad accounting methods. The first is reimbursement of actual expenses. The employee supplies invoices or other reliable evidence, and the company reimburses the professional portion under a written policy. For electricity or internet, the company should use a documented allocation method rather than reimburse the entire household bill without analysis. The method can consider the number of telework days, the professional area, the duration of use and the proportion of the service needed for work. It should be applied consistently and explained in the expense policy.
The second is a fixed allowance. The official Service Public 2026 information reports, in the absence of a collective agreement, a maximum social-contribution-exempt allowance of €2.70 per telework day within a monthly cap of €59.40, or €11 per month for one telework day per week, depending on the payment method. Where a collective agreement provides the allowance, the page reports €3.30 per day within a monthly cap of €72.60, or €13.20 per month for one telework day per week. These amounts describe the reported ceilings for social-contribution exemption; they do not automatically create an entitlement to every euro, and they do not prevent a different actual-expense analysis where the conditions are met.
Annual changes are a real compliance issue. A founder should not copy a 2025 table into a 2026 payroll file. The payroll provider should confirm the applicable URSSAF treatment for the relevant pay period, the collective agreement and the chosen method. If the company pays above a safe fixed-allowance ceiling, it should retain evidence capable of supporting the professional nature and reality of the excess. If the company calls a payment a salary supplement, it should not expect the label “telework allowance” to produce an exemption by itself.
The Court of cassation has repeatedly treated proof and proportionality as central. In the Second Civil Chamber judgment of 28 May 2014, appeal no. 13-18.212, concerning technology-related professional expenses and a URSSAF adjustment, the court explained that reimbursement is tied to expenses actually incurred, with a method based on the employee’s professional-use declaration when the employer cannot produce all underlying proof, subject to the applicable limits. The decision refers to paper, ink, connection and the acquisition of a computer, printer or scanner. Its exact wording includes “l’indemnisation des frais engagés … s’effectue uniquement sous la forme du remboursement des dépenses réellement exposées”. The case predates the current telework scale, but its evidential logic remains valuable.
In the Social Chamber judgment concerning appeal no. 11-23.071, the Cour de cassation examined a fixed reimbursement that was manifestly disproportionate to the employee’s actual professional expenses and found that the clause could not be opposed to the employee in the circumstances described. The decision states that “Les frais justifiés exposés par un salarié pour les besoins de son activité professionnelle” must be reimbursed, subject to a properly structured fixed arrangement and the protection of the minimum wage. The case concerned travel and communication expenses rather than a standard home-office allowance, but it warns against using a fixed figure that leaves a necessary cost with the employee.
The most recent useful reference is the Social Chamber judgment of 18 February 2026, appeal no. 24-19.459. The court rejected a claim in the context of an agreement that treated voluntary regular telework and exceptional imposed telework differently, while recalling the principles governing reimbursement and equality of treatment. The decision describes a reimbursement for installation, a monthly amount for internet and energy, a possible insurance surcharge and the cost of an electrical-compliance certificate under the relevant collective arrangement. It also explains that an allocation is not automatically required by statute in every situation and that the contractual or collective framework matters. A founder should read the case as a warning to choose and apply one documented regime, not as a licence to omit reimbursement analysis.
Insurance should be addressed without overstating the employee’s burden. The company should ask whether home working is covered by the employee’s household insurance and should record any additional premium that is genuinely required by the professional use. It should not demand a certificate or policy document unrelated to the role. The telework schedule can require the employee to notify the insurer, while the company decides whether it reimburses an additional cost after proof. If a company-owned laptop is insured separately, the company should handle that policy itself.
Furniture raises a similar question. A company may supply a chair, screen, desk or ergonomic accessory. If it does not, the written policy should state whether the employee may request equipment, whether prior approval is required, who owns it and how it is returned. A founder should not promise to reimburse every household improvement. The legal issue is the equipment and adaptation necessary for the job, not a general renovation of the home. A role requiring intensive screen work may justify a different setup from a role requiring occasional online meetings.
Transport must be kept separate from home-office costs. A teleworker may still travel to the company’s premises, a client site or a training session. The company should state when travel is professional travel, when it is an ordinary commute and which reimbursement rules apply. The employee’s reduced number of commuting days does not by itself eliminate rights attached to transport benefits. The official Service Public information on private-sector home-to-work transport costs confirms that public-transport reimbursement and other mobility arrangements have their own conditions and evidence requirements. Do not mix a transport refund with the electricity or internet allowance.
Payroll evidence should be designed before the first payslip. The file should identify the telework days, the allowance or actual-expense method, the supporting invoices, approval dates, payment dates, payroll treatment and any social-contribution decision. The company should retain the contract and policy with the payroll records, not only in the founder’s personal email. If the company uses a French accountant, the founder should ask for a written explanation of the selected treatment and the documents required for an audit. URSSAF can examine the basis of an exemption; a founder who cannot reconstruct the calculation may face a contribution adjustment even when the underlying expense was legitimate.
Evidence must also show consistency. If the employee works two days at home each week but the allowance is paid for five days, the company should correct the payroll rather than explain the discrepancy later. If the employee stops teleworking during leave, training or a business trip, the policy should say whether the allowance is day-based and how the payroll system treats the absence. If the company changes from actual expenses to a fixed allowance, it should date the change, explain the new coverage and avoid paying both methods for the same cost.
B. What should a foreign founder do after a refusal, accident, unpaid expense or URSSAF challenge?
The first step after a dispute is classification. A refusal to allow home working is not the same as a refusal to reimburse equipment, and neither is the same as a challenge to an accident or a URSSAF adjustment. The founder should preserve the version of the contract, the telework schedule, the policy, the employee’s request, the response, the expense reports, the payslips and the relevant technical records. Do not rewrite the original document without keeping the earlier version and the date of the change.
If the company refuses a request for telework, it should identify the applicable agreement or charter and give the reason required by that framework. Article L. 1222-9 requires the employer who refuses telework for an eligible position under the applicable agreement or charter to give reasons. A refusal should therefore address the role and the operating conditions, not merely say that the founder prefers office work. Where the employee is disabled or is a carer covered by the provision, the refusal analysis requires particular care. A company with no workable office alternative should not create a contradictory record by describing home work as impossible while directing the employee to use the home during emergencies.
If the disagreement concerns an unpaid expense, ask four questions: was the cost necessary for the job, was it approved or reasonably required, is there proof of payment, and does the company’s policy cover it? The company should not reject an expense solely because the employee bought it personally if the company had required the employee to work and supplied no workable equipment. Conversely, the employee should not assume that a personal purchase is reimbursable simply because it was useful. The written approval and the actual working conditions will often decide the issue.
The case law gives a practical evidence hierarchy. The decision in appeal no. 13-18.212 links technology expenses to real professional use and supporting evidence. The decision in appeal no. 11-23.071 warns against a fixed reimbursement that is manifestly disproportionate. The 2026 decision in appeal no. 24-19.459 shows why the collective or contractual framework matters when regular and exceptional telework are treated differently. Together, these references support a disciplined file: describe the work, identify the cost, choose the method, preserve proof and apply it consistently.
If an accident is reported at home, the founder should avoid two opposite mistakes. The first is to assume that every domestic event is automatically a work accident. The second is to dismiss the report because nobody saw it. Under Article L. 1222-9, the relevant question includes the place of telework and the period of professional activity; under Article L. 411-1 of the Social Security Code, the general definition concerns an accident by reason of or in connection with work. The company should record the employee’s account, the work schedule, the reported time and place, and the steps taken to make the required declaration. Medical confidentiality and personal-data limits must be respected.
If the employee reports an injury caused by the workstation, the company should consider immediate measures: stop using defective equipment, arrange a replacement, review the risk assessment and contact the occupational-health service where appropriate. The employer’s duty is preventive as well as reactive. Article L. 4121-1 requires an organisation and means adapted to the circumstances, while Article L. 4121-2 requires risks to be assessed and addressed at source. A written risk review after the event is useful, but it does not replace an earlier prevention system or erase a known defect.
If URSSAF challenges an allowance or reimbursement, the company should separate the legal basis from the calculation. Produce the telework agreement or charter, the list of telework days, the policy, payroll extracts, invoices, the allocation calculation and the explanation of any actual-cost allocation. The company should verify which version of the administrative scale applied to each pay period. It should not respond with a screenshot of a general blog post or with a label copied into payroll. The official Article 6 of the 4 September 2025 Order and the updated 2026 Service Public page should be read with the payroll provider’s treatment of the company’s specific method.
A foreign founder should also protect the company against an avoidable language gap. The employment documents can be prepared in English for operational use, but the employee must receive information that is legally effective under French employment law. The company should have a reliable French version or bilingual package for the contract, charter, safety rules and monitoring notice, with consistent definitions. Kbis, greffe, URSSAF, DPAE, DSN and CSE should be explained in the founder’s internal checklist. “Greffe” is the registry office attached to the competent commercial or civil court; “Kbis” is the company-register extract; URSSAF manages social-contribution collection; DPAE and DSN are payroll-related declarations; CSE is the employee representative body. Clear terminology reduces the chance that a founder treats an English policy as a substitute for a French legal step.
The company should identify the competent internal decision-maker. If the founder is outside France, the French company’s president, managing director, payroll provider or delegated HR contact should know who can approve equipment, respond to an accident, sign a telework amendment and speak with the occupational-health service. A founder who alone controls the bank account and email may be commercially important, but that does not automatically make the founder the right person to collect health information or supervise a medical issue. Delegations should be written and limited.
When the company has only one employee, there is no colleague to provide a comparative record of workload or equipment. That makes contemporaneous evidence more important. Keep a monthly telework log, a quarterly equipment review and an annual workload interview. Record changes in the home-working location, country, schedule and role. Do not rely on a cloud service whose retention period is shorter than the period in which an employment claim may arise. Access to the file should be restricted, and the employee should know how to request their employment information or report a security concern.
There are also red flags that call for advice before the company acts. These include an employee working from a country not authorised by the contract, a founder asking the employee to use a personal account for company records, a home office that handles regulated or highly confidential data without security controls, an allowance paid without any telework days, a refusal based only on the employee’s refusal to admit the employer into the home, a work accident reported during a scheduled telework period, and an URSSAF letter requesting the basis of an exemption. Each red flag may be curable, but the cure should be documented rather than improvised in a message.
The best response is usually a corrective plan. Confirm the employing entity and work location; sign or update the telework document; issue equipment; set the security and monitoring notices; review the risk assessment; reconcile telework days with payroll; reimburse legitimate costs; and record the reason for any refusal or change. If a dispute is already underway, preserve the original evidence before making corrections. A correction that changes the story without explaining when and why it was made can undermine an otherwise reasonable position.
For international groups, the French company should keep its employment file distinct from the foreign parent’s governance file. The parent may fund the equipment, provide software or appoint the French company’s director, but the French employer should document the employee’s work instructions, payroll and safety processes. Intercompany arrangements should not leave the first employee unsure whether the French company, the foreign parent or a third-party platform is responsible for the laptop, instructions and expenses. Clear responsibility helps both the employee and the group defend the operational reality.
Conclusion
A French company can let its first employee work from home from the date of hiring, including when the shareholders and founder are abroad. The arrangement should be treated as telework from the outset when work that could be performed at the company’s premises is carried out elsewhere through information and communication technology. The company should document the legal route, the work location, the schedule, contact hours, workload controls, reversibility, equipment, security and costs. It should apply equal-treatment rules, protect the employee’s private home, provide a proportionate prevention system and maintain a clear accident-reporting route.
For costs, choose actual reimbursement or a properly supported fixed allowance, separate equipment from household expenses and transport, reconcile the method with the 2026 administrative scale and keep payroll evidence. The Cour de cassation references on actual professional expenses, disproportionate fixed arrangements, home-use compensation and exceptional telework all point to the same operational discipline: the label is less important than the work actually required, the cost actually incurred and the proof preserved.
A practical first-employee file should contain the signed employment and telework documents, the risk assessment, equipment register, security rules, monitoring notice, workload and working-time records, expense policy, telework-day log, payroll treatment, annual review and incident procedure. It should also explain the French terms used by the company—Kbis, greffe, URSSAF, DPAE, DSN and CSE—so that an overseas founder can direct the right question to the right adviser. When a refusal, accident, unpaid expense or URSSAF challenge occurs, preserve the original file and obtain a targeted review before changing the arrangement.
Need a quick opinion on your case
A telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from our firm can help you check the telework agreement, equipment budget, reimbursement method and first-employee evidence file.
Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or use our contact form.