The right to request flexible working became available for caring duties under the Work Life Balance Act 2023 ("2023 Act"). This is a right to request flexible work to provide personal care or support to a specified person, which includes a child under twelve or under sixteen if the child has a disability or illness. Requests for flexibility can include but are not limited to part time work, adapted hours or remote work. There is no obligation on an employer to facilitate these requests which can be refused for specific, valid business reasons.

Since the Covid pandemic there remains a visible gap between the expectations of employers and employees in relation to the extent to which flexibility should be applied to their working arrangement. We are also seeing an increase in WRC claims from working parents to facilitate caring duties.

In this article we consider two diverse Workplace Relations Commission determinations which provide useful guidance to employers to how to mitigate risk in engaging with employees in relation to these requests and a recent under the 2023 Act. We also examine a recent CJEU decision which may expand the rights of employees who are also caregivers.

Lisa McGrath v Net Smart Security Limited  ADJ-00056559/2025

The Complainant made a number of claims to include discrimination on the grounds of gender, pregnancy and family status, victimisation, harassment, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, constructive dismissal and claims under maternity protection and parental leave legislation. The Complainant requested part time work after her first child due to difficulties during her pregnancy and childcare obligations. When her request to work part time was refused the Complainant resigned. The Respondent informed the Complainant such requests could only be granted on medical grounds. No medical evidence was provided by the Complainant. The Complainant failed to exercise her right to lodge a grievance before resigning. The Complainant sought reinstatement or re engagement as a remedy. The Respondent indicated that the Complainant's role remained open on a full-time basis.

The Complainant succeeded in her discrimination and constructive dismissal claims but the Adjudicator determined that reinstatement or reengagement were not an appropriate remedy. Instead they made a substantive award of €50,000 (just under the maximum award of two years pay). In relation to the equality claim they found that the Complainant made out a prima facie case, with no credible defence being provided by the Respondent. In their determination the Adjudicator indicated their intention was that the award would have "a genuine dissuasive effect".

In making this award the Adjudicator indicated that it was clear from the evidence of the Respondent's witnesses that there was a lack of knowledge in relation to the protection afforded to pregnant employees, no credible explanation as to why a risk assessment, paid time off for maternity related appointments and meaningful efforts to reasonably accommodate the Complainant were not undertaken.

The Adjudicator also highlighted a number of factors which influenced their decision as follows:

• The Complainant alleged that her manager's attitude changed after she informed them she was pregnant.
  
  
• The Respondent failed to pay the Complainant for attending ante-natal appointments and experienced a loss in her bonus as a result of attending those appointments.
  
  
• Despite the difficulties with her pregnancy no risk assessment was ever carried out by her employer.
  
  
• The Complainant's request for part time working hours was rejected on the basis it fell outside company policy, however a number of the CEO's family members had been facilitated in that regard.
  
  
• The Respondent failed to engage with the Complaint's request in a meaningful way.
  
  
• The Respondent accepted there were errors in statutory payments to the Complainant but did not offer to rectify the position.

Haleigh  Davidson v St Joseph's Secondary School, Rush ADJ-00060702/2025

In this case the Complainant made claims under equality, unfair dismissal, fixed term work and parental leave legislation. Under the equality heading the Complainant alleged she had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender and family status. She also alleged penalisation for exercising her entitlement to parental leave.

The case involved a teacher who was employed by a secondary school. Before she was due to return to work following maternity leave and a career break she sought reduced working hours on the basis of a job share arrangement. This request was made to facilitate her childcare arrangements. The Respondent offered a job share over four days, which was rejected by the Complainant as it would have attached full-time childcare costs and a reduced salary. The Complainant also alleged unfavourable treatment, in particular, that she could not access workplace systems and was treated less favourably than colleagues in job share arrangements. The Complainant remained in employment at the time of the hearing.

The Respondent argued that they had engaged in a meaningful way with the employee in relation to her job share request. They relied on the government circular and the scheduling of timetables to support their counter proposal to the Complainant. They pointed to the efforts already made to facilitate the Complainant, to include her career break, which was due to childcare issues. They also pointed to continued efforts to support the Complainant and resolve the matter through union representatives and referrals to occupational health to address her concerns regarding stress. The Respondent continued to engage with the Complainant to try and resolve issues up to the hearing date. By contrast, the Complainant engaged in excessive emailing to the Board and other organisations repeating the same points often in multiple emails up to the hearing date.

Ultimately the Adjudicator found against the Complainant on all grounds. In particular, the Complainant alleged she was treated differently in regard to timetabling and the offer of a three-day working week in August 2024, but this was found to align with standard practice.  In making this determination the Adjudicator stated that the equality legislation does not entitle parents to reasonable accommodation and that this obligation is only triggered in respect of disability.

Javier Osorio v Cognizant Technology Solutions Ireland Limited ADJ-00052414/2024

This is one of the only cases which has come before the WRC under Section 27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 where the basis for a request to remote work relied on caring duties. In this case the Complainant was employed as a Senior Process Executive. He signed a contract which required him to attend in person on the client site to provide services. The Complainant made a request for hybrid work to his employer, with a maximum office attendance of two days per week "to balance the responsibilities of his job with caring for his daughter". The Respondent consulted with their client to explore this request. As the client was unwilling to allow employees assigned to their project to work from home the request was refused by the Respondent. Similar requests by seventy-two other employees of the Respondent were also refused. A further appeal by the Complainant was unsuccessful. The Complainant was advised by the Respondent that some projects were suitable for remote working and that he could apply for other roles that matched his skills.   In making their determination the Adjudication Officer determined that the Respondent had properly considered the application for remote work and “recognised his need to balance his work and childcare responsibilities”.

G.L. v AB SpA C-38/24, September 11, 2025 CJEU

This case involved a referral to the CJEU from the Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy on foot of a disability discrimination case taken under equality legislation. The case involved a request by an employee for a flexible working arrangement to care for a child with a severe disability. The employee was employed as a station operator. The employee requested a fixed morning shift or lower-level duties to allow them to follow a care programme at a fixed time in the afternoon. The employee was assigned a fixed workplace with a preferential schedule on a temporary basis.  She relied on the concept of discrimination by association under the grounds of disability. In particular she claimed unfavourable treatment as she was not being treated in the same manner as colleagues, who, for health reasons, were considered to be temporarily or permanently unfit to perform their work.

Ultimately the CJEU found there was an obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to employees who are caregivers of a child with a disability. It also determined that non-disabled employees could claim associative discrimination if their employer fails to accommodate their caregiving needs.

Developments

These cases highlights the wide range of obligations placed on an employer in relation to working parents. Multiple claims were made in the highlighted WRC cases under a variety of different legislation. Given the range of protections and rights available to working parents requests from employees, this cohort can be complex. It is also important to remember that none of these rights operate in a vacuum. Employers must be live to the interplay of their obligations under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015, the Work Life Balance Act 2023 and related Code of Practice, the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act 2005, the Code of Practice on Access to Part Time Work (updated in 2026) and other related family leave obligations, for example, parents leave or parental leave.

It is clear from the Net Smart case that if an equality claim arises from a refusal to facilitate flexible work that an Adjudicator may consider the employers continuum of behaviour towards the employee to determine if discrimination occurred. By contrast, the Davidson case is an example of how meaningful engagement with an employee can be used to successfully defend claims arising from a refusal to facilitate flexible working after a period away from the workplace. The key litigation risks would appear to fall under equality legislation given the awards available and the fact that the WRC cannot overrule an employer's decision in relation to a remote or flexible working request.

Takeaways

Given the overlapping rights and litigation risk in this area employers should be aware of the following:

• Requests for flexible work received from a working parent, in particular a mother returning to work from maternity leave or another approved leave can be more complex than other requests and must be addressed carefully.
  
  
• Employers must be aware of the wide range of entitlements available to working parents as well as the recently updated Code of Practice on Access to Part Time Work and the interplay between those rights.
  
  
• A lack of awareness of an employee's rights under equality legislation in relation to working conditions or otherwise will play poorly with Adjudication Officers and can influence their decisions.
  
  
• Although there is no obligation to grant a request for flexible working arrangements, any refusal should be set out in writing relying on clear objective grounds in line with company policy.
  
  
• The company must ensure their policies are applied consistently across the business.
  
  
• Claims by employees who remain in employment are no longer unusual which can be tricky to navigate.
  
  
• Ongoing transparent engagement with an employee can provide a successful defence to such claims.
  
  
• Requests for flexible or remote work by working parents must be carefully considered, addressed and documented by employers but the WRC has no power to force employers to agree to such requests.
  
  
• In light of the CJEU decision, discrimination by association as it relates to disability may evolve as another barrier to refusing flexible work requests for caregivers.