Javier Osorio v Cognizant Technology Solutions Ireland Limited
Decision Number: ADJ-00052414 Legal Body: Workplace Relations Commission
Published on: 07/05/2026
Issues Covered:
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Duncan Inverarity Former Partner & Head of Employment Law, A&L Goodbody LLP
Duncan Inverarity Former Partner & Head of Employment Law, A&L Goodbody LLP
Duncan inverarity 100x100

Duncan Inverarity is a former a partner and Head of A&L Goodbody's Employment Law group and practiced exclusively in the area of employment law and industrial relations in multiple jurisdictions. Duncan advised public and private sector employers on both contentious and non-contentious matters. He advised Board rooms across Ireland and abroad on strategic and complex employment and industrial relations matters. Duncan also specialised in crisis management for clients and advised on some of the most high profile corporate issues in Ireland. Duncan regularly appeared for clients in the Workplace Relations Commission, the Circuit Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Duncan also acted for partnerships in mediated settlements and in proceedings in the High Court.

Complainant:
Javier Osorio
Respondent:
Cognizant Technology Solutions Ireland Limited
Summary

Once a work from home request is properly considered, employers cannot be held liable for its rejection under the 2023 Act.

Background

The Complainant requested a hybrid work model he could work remotely from home most days and come to the office a maximum of two days a week. This was because he wanted to balance the responsibilities of his job with caring for his 10-year-old daughter.

His request was refused along with those of 72 other employees out of Cognizant’s Irish workforce of 380 people.

The Complainant brought a complaint under s27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (the 2023 Act).

Outcome

The WRC ruled that the Complainant’s application was properly considered and the company “recognised his need to balance his work and childcare responsibilities”.

The Adjudication Officer said she accepted “the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses that they consulted with their client to explore the possibility of remote working, but that the client was unwilling to permit the employees assigned to their project to work from home”.

Practical Guidance

Once a work from home request is properly considered, employers cannot be held liable for its rejection under the 2023 Act.

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 07/05/2026