A telesales employee dismissed for insulting several customers
The case, reported by Cadremploi on 6 November 2026, involved an employee who had worked since May 2013 at a call centre selling dietary and natural products.
Between January and February 2018, several telephone conversations escalated into confrontations.
On 14 February, a customer asked the telesales employee to stop contacting her and to leave her alone. The employee replied that she would continue calling her every day, describing her as an “old bat”.
Other exchanges revealed even more offensive remarks, including those directed at a 69-year-old customer.
Following several complaints, the employer reviewed the telephone recordings, initiated disciplinary proceedings and dismissed the employee for gross misconduct.
The employee challenged her dismissal, citing, among other factors, commercial pressure from management, difficult customers and her professional performance.
On 29 November 2019, the employment tribunal upheld the finding of gross misconduct.
However, on 25 May 2023, the Bordeaux Court of Appeal reached a different assessment.
The judges considered that the insults justified dismissal but did not make it impossible for the employee to remain with the company during her notice period.
The dismissal therefore remained justified on genuine and serious grounds, but the classification of gross misconduct was rejected.
The employee was awarded €6,354 in various compensation payments, holiday pay and salary arrears, together with €1,500 in legal costs, bringing the total to €7,854.
The ruling demonstrates that misconduct, even when established, does not automatically constitute gross misconduct.
Hotels and restaurants: when guests and employees exchange insults, what disciplinary action is appropriate?
In hotels, tensions with guests can affect virtually every department: receptionists, concierges, reservations agents, switchboard operators, room attendants, housekeepers, porters, waiters, restaurant managers, sales teams and employees responsible for handling complaints.
A particularly sensitive situation arises when a guest insults an employee and the employee, reacting in anger, responds in equally offensive terms.
Can a hotel operator discipline, or even dismiss, an employee who has insulted a guest when that guest was the first to use abusive language?
In principle, yes.
Being insulted does not automatically entitle an employee to respond with insults. Such conduct may constitute misconduct when it breaches professional obligations relating to hospitality and guest relations.
However, any disciplinary measure must be assessed in light of the specific circumstances of the incident.
An isolated verbal reaction to repeated provocation is not necessarily comparable to spontaneous, deliberate or repeated insults.
Employers must consider, in particular, the nature of the remarks exchanged, the guest’s initial behaviour, any previous disciplinary record and the circumstances in which the incident occurred.
Provocation by a guest may therefore mitigate the assessment of the employee’s misconduct or even lead to a disciplinary sanction being considered disproportionate.
The telesales case, however, did not specifically concern an employee retaliating against insults initially made by a customer. Above all, it illustrates the distinction between misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal and gross misconduct.
Ordinary misconduct or gross misconduct: a distinction with significant financial consequences
Under French employment law, gross misconduct (faute grave) involves conduct sufficiently serious to make it impossible for an employee to remain with the company, including during their notice period.
By contrast, dismissal for misconduct constituting genuine and serious grounds (cause réelle et sérieuse) generally allows the employee to retain their entitlement to statutory or contractual severance pay and notice, subject to the applicable legal and collective agreement provisions.
For hotel management teams, the question is therefore not simply whether an employee’s behaviour warrants disciplinary action.
They must also determine whether the seriousness of the conduct justifies immediate termination of the employment contract.
Establishing misconduct and determining its legal classification are two separate questions.
Hotel operators must establish management intervention procedures to protect their teams
When a guest becomes aggressive, repeatedly uses abusive language or behaves threateningly, an employee should not be left to manage the situation alone.
Internal procedures should provide for prompt intervention by the front office manager, reservations manager, food and beverage director, executive housekeeper or duty manager.
Employees should be able to end an abusive exchange, request management assistance and report incidents without automatically fearing disciplinary consequences.
For room attendants, who are particularly exposed when working alone in guest rooms or corridors, such protection requires accessible alarm systems and clear instructions: employees should not return alone to a guest who has behaved threateningly.
Incidents should be documented through factual reports, witness statements and, where legally permissible, supporting evidence.
Recording telephone calls: protecting reservations agents without introducing permanent surveillance
The telesales case illustrates the value of telephone recordings in establishing the precise circumstances of a disputed conversation.
Within hotels, this issue is particularly relevant to reservations agents, switchboard operators, sales teams and guest relations or complaints departments.
Call recording can help protect an employee who has been unfairly accused, document abusive remarks made by a guest and provide evidence in potential proceedings.
However, the French data protection authority, the CNIL, specifies that employers cannot systematically record every call for the purpose of combating abusive behaviour.
It recommends less intrusive measures, including systems that allow employees to activate recording when a problem arises.
Implementing such a system requires, in particular, a clearly defined purpose, appropriate information for employees and customers, prior consultation with the Social and Economic Committee (CSE) where applicable, restricted access and limited retention periods.
Abusive or violent guests: can hotel operators take legal action?
Being a paying guest does not confer immunity from the law.
An employee subjected to insults, threats, physical violence or sexually inappropriate behaviour may, depending on the circumstances, file a criminal complaint and seek compensation for the harm suffered.
The hotel may also initiate proceedings where it has suffered its own loss or damage, particularly in cases involving property damage or serious disruption to its operations.
Hotel operators must nevertheless distinguish between the relevant legal classifications: insults, threats, physical assault and sexual assault are governed by different provisions of French criminal law.
Management can support employees in pursuing legal remedies, preserve lawfully obtained evidence and contact law enforcement authorities where there is an immediate danger.
Can a hotel legally ban a guest from staying at the property?
Yes, subject to certain conditions. Under French law, a hotel operator may refuse a new booking from a guest who has previously behaved abusively, threateningly or violently, provided there is a legitimate, objective and sufficiently substantiated reason.
Article L. 121-11 of the French Consumer Code generally prohibits businesses from refusing to provide services to consumers unless there is a legitimate reason.
Inappropriate behaviour by a consumer may itself constitute such a legitimate reason.
This interpretation was expressly confirmed by the French Ministry of the Economy in a response published by the Senate on 4 October 2018. The response notably referred to a Versailles Court of Appeal judgment dated 7 March 2003 (No. 01-04329), which recognised insulting behaviour or discourtesy by a consumer as a legitimate reason for refusing a sale.
Refusing accommodation must be based on specific facts
A hotel could therefore justify refusing a new booking where a guest has previously:
- Insulted or threatened employees;
- Physically assaulted an employee or another guest;
- Engaged in harassment or intimidation;
- Caused serious or repeated disturbances at the property;
- Deliberately damaged equipment or facilities.
Any refusal must nevertheless be proportionate, documented and free from discrimination.
A simple commercial disagreement, legitimate complaint or negative review does not automatically constitute a valid reason for refusing accommodation.
Refusing a future booking is not the same as removing a guest who is already staying at the hotel
This distinction is fundamental.
Before a contract has been concluded, a hotel operator may refuse a new reservation where a legitimate reason has been established.
Once a booking has been accepted, the hotel must take account of its existing contractual obligations. Unjustified unilateral cancellation may expose the establishment to liability.
During an ongoing stay, violent or dangerous behaviour may justify immediate intervention to protect individuals, but it does not give the hotel operator a general right to forcibly evict a guest.
Where a guest refuses to leave or a dangerous situation arises, the establishment should seek assistance from the competent authorities rather than attempt an improvised physical removal.
How should a ban on future stays be formalised?
To ensure that such a decision is legally defensible, management should retain factual evidence supporting the refusal, have the measure approved by an authorised manager and clearly inform the guest.
Written notification may explain that, in view of previously documented incidents, the establishment will no longer be able to accept future reservations from the individual concerned.
The decision should remain subject to review if circumstances change.
Hotel groups must also distinguish between a restriction applying only to the property concerned and a ban extending across several hotels. A shared list of guests who are refused accommodation raises additional questions concerning personal data protection, necessity, proportionality and data retention periods.
A ban on future stays should therefore not be treated as an arbitrary punishment but as a preventive measure justified by the safety of individuals and the proper operation of the establishment.
Protecting employees: an obligation that goes beyond the commercial relationship
Articles L. 4121-1 and L. 4121-2 of the French Labour Code require employers to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and protect the physical and mental health of their employees.
In hotels, this responsibility extends across every department, from front office and housekeeping to reservations and food and beverage operations.
It requires employers to train their teams, establish reporting and escalation procedures, ensure effective management intervention and provide an appropriate response to serious incidents.
It also means that a guest complaint should not automatically be treated as evidence of employee misconduct.
The telesales case demonstrates that disciplinary sanctions must be proportionate to the facts. It also encourages employers to examine the conditions in which their employees perform their duties.
Guest satisfaction cannot justify leaving employees exposed to insults, threats or violence without adequate protection.
For hotel executives, the challenge is therefore to balance three responsibilities: maintaining service standards, protecting employees and, where circumstances justify it, taking action against guests whose behaviour is incompatible with personal safety and the proper operation of the establishment.
At a Glance
Court ruling: Bordeaux Court of Appeal, 25 May 2023 — insults directed at customers justified dismissal, but not gross misconduct.
Financial outcome: The employee received €7,854, including legal costs.
Employee protection: Hotels must establish escalation procedures to protect staff facing abusive guests.
Call recording: Targeted recording may help document incidents, subject to French data protection rules.
Legal action: Employees may pursue complaints against guests responsible for threats, insults or violence.
Refusal of accommodation: French consumer law permits hotels to refuse future bookings on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds, including documented abusive behaviour.
Legal sources
- Cadremploi, Judith Chouzenoux, 6 November 2026 — telesales employee case.
- French Consumer Code, Article L. 121-11 — refusal to provide services except on legitimate grounds.
- DGCCRF — Refusal to Sell — applicable conditions and legitimate grounds.
- Ministerial response of 4 October 2018 — insulting behaviour and Versailles Court of Appeal case law.
- CNIL — Recording Workplace Telephone Calls — conditions and restrictions.
- French Labour Code, Articles L. 1232-1, L. 1234-1, L. 1234-9, L. 4121-1 and L. 4121-2.
