The Nîmes Court of Appeal has upheld a retailer's dismissal of an employee over repeated personal use of gift cards held for customers. Its September 15 judgment found real and serious grounds for dismissal, while saying the very small amounts did not constitute gross misconduct. [S01]

The employment ruling concerns two €10 gift-card redemptions in December 2022 and October 2023, followed by dismissal in December 2023. The new event is the appellate decision, not the underlying transactions. The official case heading anonymises the employee and retailer.

Redemption records and access to stored cards

The data behind the story

Two separately recorded EUR10 personal redemptions

The judgment identifies two purchases by the employee, on December 10, 2022 and October 25, 2023.

EUR

Source
Original official case or programme document

Amounts of the two recorded redemptions, not a retailer-wide loss. The court did not establish how the earlier card had originally been obtained.

Show data tableHide data table
Scroll left or right to see all columns
Two separately recorded EUR10 personal redemptions (EUR)
CategoryGift-card value used
December 10, 202210 EUR
October 25, 202310 EUR

The court accepted evidence linking both purchases to the employee's purchasing identifier. For the October 2023 transaction, video evidence and the employee's temporary responsibility for access to the store safe supported the finding that a card was taken from store custody and used personally that day. [S01]

The evidence did not establish how the earlier card had originally been obtained. The decision should therefore not be read as proving that two cards were taken from the safe.

The employee argued that the later redemption was a mistake, that distribution rules were unclear and that the cards might belong to a third party. He also relied on roughly 28 years of service without previous disciplinary action.

The court acknowledged uncertainty about the precise procedures for giving cards to customers. It also noted evidence that employees could sometimes earn gift cards through workplace challenges. But it found that the particular cards at issue were not intended for employees' personal use. [S01]

Repeated conduct, despite small amounts

The employee sought EUR90,000 for dismissal without real and serious cause and a separate EUR50,000 for alleged humiliating circumstances. The appeal rejected both claims. These were employment-damages demands, not the value of the cards or compensation awarded to the retailer. [S01]

The data behind the story

Employment damages requested, and rejected

The employee’s appeal presented separate claims about the basis and circumstances of dismissal. Neither claim was awarded.

EUR requested

Source
Original official case or programme document

Both claims were rejected. These figures are not gift-card losses or awarded compensation. The judgment separately preserved an earlier wage award.

Show data tableHide data table
Scroll left or right to see all columns
Employment damages requested, and rejected (EUR requested)
CategoryAmount requested by employee
Dismissal without real and serious cause90,000 EUR requested
Alleged humiliating circumstances50,000 EUR requested

The judges relied on the known internal prohibition against granting personal discounts and on the repeated redemptions. The employee had not shown that he had legitimately received other cards with which these could have been confused. His suggestion of third-party ownership did not establish that the cards belonged to him.

The small values excluded gross misconduct, the court said, but the repeated use and circumvention of the known rule supported dismissal in these circumstances despite the long employment history. The court affirmed the Avignon employment tribunal's judgment in full. [S01]

For retailer gift-card operations, the dispute turns on the distinction between access to cards for work and entitlement to spend them personally. It is a fact-specific employment decision, not a criminal theft conviction or a new general rule governing every low-value redemption.