{"id":35693,"date":"2026-10-11T21:06:38","date_gmt":"2026-10-11T19:06:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/work-time-fraud-while-working-from-home-court-rules-several-terminations-invalid\/"},"modified":"2026-10-11T21:06:57","modified_gmt":"2026-10-11T19:06:57","slug":"work-time-fraud-while-working-from-home-court-rules-several-terminations-invalid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/work-time-fraud-while-working-from-home-court-rules-several-terminations-invalid\/","title":{"rendered":"Work Time Fraud While Working From Home: Court Rules Several Terminations Invalid"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Anyone who works from home must accurately track their working hours. However, not every discrepancy automatically constitutes working-hour fraud. <\/strong>  This is evident from a ruling by the Bochum Labor Court dated March 9, 2026 (Case No. 4 Ca 1719\/25).<\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What was it about?<\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The employee challenged the decision in court\u2014and was successful. The Bochum Labor Court ruled that most of the terminations were invalid. <\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why did the terminations fail?<\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.  <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Not all inactivity constitutes time-sheet fraud<\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/download\/\" data-type=\"page\" data-id=\"7185\">Status Holder<\/a> comes in, by the way: Your Teams status always remains \u201cAvailable\u201d!) <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Phone calls, reading documents, conceptual work, or preparing for meetings can also be part of regular work duties.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Actual working-time fraud requires intentional deception, such as when employees deliberately record hours they did not work.<\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What does this mean for employers and employees?<\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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. <\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Working from home is not a legal vacuum\u2014but neither is it a free pass for unjustified terminations.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.  <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling underscores the importance of transparent working time regulations, careful presentation of evidence, and legally sound termination procedures.<\/p>\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Source:<\/strong> Bochum Labor Court, judgment dated March 9, 2026, Case No. 4 Ca 1719\/25; summary by attorney Thomas Ritter, anwalt.de, October 8, 2026. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Note: This article summarizes the key points of the published case discussion and is not a substitute for individual legal advice.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":35685,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"rank_math_title":"","rank_math_description":"","rank_math_focus_keyword":"Working-Hour Fraud","footnotes":""},"categories":[603],"tags":[874,243,197,873],"class_list":["post-35693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-court","tag-home-office","tag-teams-en","tag-working-hour-fraud"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35693","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35693"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35693\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35694,"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35693\/revisions\/35694"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35685"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statusholder.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}