Monitoring working time through geolocation: what proportionality requirements?
Cass. soc., 18 March 2026, n° 24-18.976
Monitoring working time through geolocation: what proportionality requirements under Article L. 1121-1 of the French Labor Code?
The French Supreme Court upheld a geolocation system used to calculate the working time of employees performing distribution duties, applying the proportionality review provided for by Article L. 1121-1 of the French Labor Code.
The Court reiterates that any restriction of rights and freedoms must be justified by the nature of the task and proportionate to the aim pursued. Applied to geolocation, this principle entails a two-fold examination:
On the one hand, the system is lawful only if working time cannot be monitored by another means, even a less effective one.
On the other hand, it is not justified where the employee enjoys freedom in organizing their work.
Here, the Court approves the court of appeal's analysis that the employees concerned had only "very limited" organizational freedom: their activity was largely predetermined, their autonomy being limited to choosing their hours within the day.
It also notes, in particular, that the system was activated by the employee only during the distribution phase, that it could be interrupted at any time, that it did not allow permanent tracking and that it captured no data outside working time.
Above all, the Court upholds the finding that no other system made it possible to ensure objective, reliable and accessible monitoring of working time. The alternative tools (e.g. a badge system with geolocation but no longitudinal tracking) made it possible neither to verify the time actually worked nor to ensure compliance with the rules on working time.
It concludes that, in this configuration, the use of geolocation is lawful.
In practice, the ruling confirms that the lawfulness of a geolocation system rests on a highly detailed demonstration. The employer must establish the absence of any relevant alternative and strictly frame the use of the tool. Failing that, the system is exposed to a risk of unlawfulness.
Source: French Supreme Court, 18 March 2026, appeal n° 24-18.976