Recall from Home Office: Limits on Mandatory Office Attendance

In its final judgment of February 11, 2026 (Düsseldorf Labour Court, Case No. 3 Ca 6587/25), the court held that an employer’s instruction requiring an employee, after years of working from home, to be physically present in the office on four out of five working days was an improper exercise of discretion and therefore invalid.

The decision highlights the requirements employers must observe when exercising their managerial discretion to revoke home office arrangements.

Employer Imposed Mandatory Office Attendance Due to Organizational Deficiencies

An IT employee who had been employed since April 2014 regularly worked at least 50 percent of his working time from home, particularly on Mondays and Fridays. During his vacation in the summer of 2025, issues arose within the department. The employee’s divisional manager formed the impression that significant organizational deficiencies existed, including inadequate project management and poor communication with external consultants.

The divisional manager initially withdrew the employee’s home office privileges entirely. The instruction was later relaxed to permit the employee to work remotely on Fridays, making office attendance mandatory from Monday through Thursday.

Apart from the employee and his supervisor, the department consisted only of a part-time employee and several external workers, all of whom worked exclusively remotely.

Labour Court: The Office Attendance Instruction Was an Improper Exercise of Discretion

The Düsseldorf Labour Court clearly distinguished between an entitlement to work from home and the review of managerial discretion.

The employee did not have a legally enforceable right to work from home. However, the employer’s instruction requiring his return to the office constituted an improper exercise of discretion.

The employee could not derive an entitlement to remote work from his employment contract, a company-wide commitment, established company practice, a concretization of managerial discretion, or the principle of equal treatment under employment law.

In particular, the court found that no company practice had arisen because the previous grant of home office days by the supervisor was merely an exercise of managerial discretion under Section 106 of the German Trade Regulation Act (GewO) and not a declaration intended to create a permanent benefit. Nor had managerial discretion become fixed over time, as there were no special circumstances beyond the mere passage of time.

Nevertheless, the court declared the instruction requiring office attendance from Monday through Thursday invalid.

Although the employer acted within the scope of its managerial authority under Section 106 GewO and had a legitimate interest in reviewing departmental processes, the instruction failed the test of reasonable discretion. As the employer bears the burden of presenting and proving that its decision complies with the principle of reasonable discretion, it was required to demonstrate how the mandatory office presence would actually improve workflows or communication.

The employer failed to do so.

The court emphasized that the employee’s key contacts continued to work exclusively remotely and that the requirement to work from the office did not alter the existing digital communication channels. As a result, allowing home office only on Fridays appeared more like a sanction or the withdrawal of a “privilege” than a measure objectively justified by operational needs.

Practical Relevance for Employers: Office Attendance Requirements Must Be Objectively Justified

Even where employees have no contractual right to work from home, existing home office arrangements cannot simply be withdrawn without justification.

Managerial discretion under Section 106 GewO is subject to full judicial review based on the principle of reasonable discretion. The employer bears the burden of proving compliance with these requirements.

An instruction requiring employees to return to the office must be objectively justified, and the employer must be able to demonstrate that the measure is genuinely capable of achieving its intended purpose. The withdrawal of home office privileges must not have the character of a disciplinary measure.

The decision aligns with a recent trend in lower-court case law toward subjecting return-to-office directives to more intensive scrutiny (see Higher Labour Court of Cologne, judgment of July 11, 2024 – 6 Sa 579/23).

Recommendations for Managing Directors and HR Decision-Makers

When revoking home office arrangements, employers should observe the following principles:

• Before issuing a return-to-office instruction, document the specific operational reasons requiring physical presence and explain how office attendance will actually address the identified issues.
• Ensure there is a clear and logical connection between the measure and the objective pursued, particularly where key communication partners themselves work remotely.
• Apply the instruction proportionately. A complete withdrawal of all home office days requires stronger justification than a partial restriction.
• Address performance or communication deficiencies through employee discussions before implementing organizational measures.
• Ensure that both the wording and tone of the instruction remain objective and do not create the impression of a punishment.
• Establish clear internal home office policies that transparently regulate both the employer’s right to revoke remote work arrangements and the circumstances under which this may occur.

We would be pleased to support you in designing legally compliant home office policies and to advise you on specific individual cases.