Belgian "Work from Home" Legislative Patchwork Now More Complex Following Supreme Court Decision
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.30.20
In our recent alert How to Determine the Best Work from Home Strategy for Your Company with Belgium Back in COVID-19 Mandatory Telework Mode, you will find a table summarizing the three recognized forms of telework under Belgian law.
When it comes to structural telework (as opposed to occasional telework or COVID-19 telework at home), an agreement in writing (employment contract or addendum) must be entered into prior to the start of the telework. Article 6 of CBA n° 85 lists the provisions that should be included (frequency of telework, periods of availability, working place (home address or other), etc.).
However, on October 5, 2020, the Belgian Supreme Court ruled that the fact that an employer and an employee did not enter into an agreement in accordance with article 6 of CBA n° 85 did not necessarily mean that a system of structural telework had not been put into place.
The employee in the case concerned claimed an indemnity in accordance with article 119.6 of the Employment Agreements Act on “homeworkers” (huisarbeiders in Dutch, travailleurs à domicile in French). The employer contested this claim, arguing that the employee was teleworking in a situation where no homeworkers’ indemnity was due. The Labor court agreed with the employer, on the basis that there was no structural telework agreement as required by CBA n° 85 and, hence, no telework. The Supreme Court has now overturned this judgment.
This Supreme Court decision demonstrates just how important it is for employers to put in place a telework policy and determine clear rules on indemnities and cost reimbursement.
Note that the above does not relate to the current mandatory COVID-19 rules on telework at home, where no individual agreement between employer and employee is required. The facts presented to the Supreme Court date from before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Our team assists clients with the drafting or review of telework policies and employment contracts/addenda determining telework terms. We help our clients to define the best work from home strategies for their companies. We also continue to closely monitor all COVID-19 developments, and we are available to help companies through this crisis in the best possible way.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
