Mother of teen sex assault victim wins €2,500 over termination of remote work in legal first

A mother who is also a workplace employee has successfully secured a significant financial award in a landmark employment rights case, marking the first instance in Ireland where such a ruling has been applied under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. The woman, whose identity remains confidential, was awarded €2,540 by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) for the abrupt termination of her remote work arrangement, which had been granted to support her daughter during a traumatic period following a serious sexual assault.

The incident occurred in late 2024 when the woman’s 13-year-old daughter suffered a severe sexual assault at her school by another minor. The girl reportedly exhibited signs of suicidal ideation and self-harm, prompting the mother to seek accommodations at work. She obtained written approval from her company’s human resources department to reduce her in-office days from five to three, allowing her to work remotely. This adjustment proved crucial during the time her daughter underwent medical examinations and forensic testing at a hospital. Despite the challenges, the mother managed to fulfill her professional responsibilities from home while assisting her daughter through the Garda investigation and preparing documentation for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

However, the situation took a dramatic turn in mid-December of the same year when the company’s managing director returned from abroad. He claimed that the remote work arrangement was "not working out" and immediately revoked it, instructing the mother to return to the office the very next day. The managing director denied the existence of the written agreement signed by HR, asserting that such arrangements were not standard practice within the company. The mother, already dealing with emotional and psychological strain, was left with just one day’s notice before being required to resume full-time in-office work.

Following this sudden change, the mother took a period of sick leave and eventually resigned from her position in early 2025. During the WRC proceedings, the managing director defended the company’s actions, stating that the remote work setup was not aligned with their usual practices. Represented by Hugh Hegarty of Peninsula Business Services, the employer argued that the claim lacked merit, emphasizing that the company believed the arrangement was not functioning effectively and thus requested the employee to comply with her original employment terms.

Adjudication Officer Valerie Murtagh reviewed the case and determined that the employer violated Section 22 of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. Her findings highlighted the lack of compliance with the necessary notice provisions and requirements for terminating the remote work arrangement. The adjudicator noted that the employee was disregarded when she sought clear and objective reasons for the revocation, and that only one day’s notice was provided. As a result, Murtagh deemed the maximum allowable award of €2,540—equivalent to four weeks’ pay—as both just and equitable, underscoring the severity of the treatment the employee endured and its negative impact on her well-being.

The employee recounted additional challenges faced at work, including being tasked with processing work permits when her former line manager became unwell—a responsibility she described as onerous and beyond her training. She described the work environment as hostile, particularly after the remote work arrangement was rescinded. When she raised concerns about these new duties during a meeting, the managing director reportedly responded with an intimidating tone, asserting control over her role and responsibilities. The adjudicator confirmed that the employee experienced a hostile work environment marked by micromanagement and pressure, further exacerbating her distress.

Despite these adversities, the employee attempted to complete her notice period after resigning, demonstrating her dedication and professionalism. Adjudication Officer Murtagh praised the employee’s character, acknowledging her honorability, diligence, and resilience in the face of difficult circumstances. The case underscores the importance of adhering to legal frameworks designed to protect employees' rights, especially in situations involving personal hardship and trauma. It also highlights the need for employers to uphold transparency and fairness in their dealings with staff, ensuring that all contractual agreements are respected and communicated clearly.