Anyone who works from home must accurately track their working hours. However, not every discrepancy automatically constitutes working-hour fraud. This is evident from a ruling by the Bochum Labor Court dated March 9, 2026 (Case No. 4 Ca 1719/25).
What was it about?
An employer accused an employee of falsely documenting his working hours while working remotely. As a result, the company issued several terminations, including two so-called terminations for cause and one termination based on suspicion.
The employee challenged the decision in court—and was successful. The Bochum Labor Court ruled that most of the terminations were invalid.
Why did the terminations fail?
In particular, procedural errors on the part of the employer were decisive. The works council had not been fully informed about the applicable remote work policies. As a result, important information was missing that would have been necessary to properly assess the allegations.
In the case of the extraordinary termination based on suspicion, the employer was also unable to sufficiently demonstrate that the statutory two-week notice period had been observed.
Not all inactivity constitutes time-sheet fraud
The ruling highlights an important distinction: An inactive Microsoft Teams status, a lack of mouse movement, or extended periods without computer activity do not in themselves prove working-time fraud. (This is exactly where our Status Holder comes in, by the way: Your Teams status always remains “Available”!)
Phone calls, reading documents, conceptual work, or preparing for meetings can also be part of regular work duties.
Actual working-time fraud requires intentional deception, such as when employees deliberately record hours they did not work.
What does this mean for employers and employees?
Employers must carefully investigate allegations, present concrete evidence, and follow the legal procedural requirements when terminating an employee. This also includes properly consulting with the works council.
Employees should keep clear records of their work performance and act quickly if they are terminated. Generally, a three-week deadline applies for filing a lawsuit challenging the termination, starting from the date the notice of termination is received.
Conclusion
Working from home is not a legal vacuum—but neither is it a free pass for unjustified terminations.
Anyone who deliberately manipulates their work hours risks losing their job. However, employers may not conclude that work-time fraud has occurred based solely on technical activity data. Furthermore, even serious allegations cannot justify a termination if essential procedural requirements are disregarded.
The ruling underscores the importance of transparent working time regulations, careful presentation of evidence, and legally sound termination procedures.
Source: Bochum Labor Court, judgment dated March 9, 2026, Case No. 4 Ca 1719/25; summary by attorney Thomas Ritter, anwalt.de, October 8, 2026.
Note: This article summarizes the key points of the published case discussion and is not a substitute for individual legal advice.
