Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Emma Cocker explores the legal action against McDonald’s over harassment allegations, in Personnel Today

Posted on: February 11th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker discusses the BBC investigation and subsequent legal action against McDonald’s over widespread allegations of harassment and abuse, and argues that it demonstrates how the employment insecurity of zero hour workers can create a toxic work culture, in Personnel Today. 

Emma’s article was published in Personnel Today, 10 February 2025. 

McDonald’s: zero hours culture feeds sexual harassment allegations

Sexual harassment allegations at the fast food giant came to the fore in 2023 and provide an example, argues Emma Cocker, of how insecure employment can contribute to power imbalances that create a toxic workplace culture.

Marking its 50th anniversary in the UK, McDonald’s announced plans last August to open more than 200 new restaurants in the UK and Ireland over the next four years. However, problems in its current national network of 1,450 outlets continue to loom large, with a deluge of allegations of employee harassment and abuse threatening to cloud the company’s agenda.

In July 2023, a BBC investigation into working conditions at McDonald’s lifted the lid on what it described as “a toxic culture of sexual assault, harassment, racism and bullying” following allegations by more than 100 staff at UK retail outlets of the fast food chain. According to the BBC, workers, some of them as young as 17, had experience of being abused, bullied, groped and routinely harassed.

The BBC investigation was promoted by disclosures made by whistleblowers after McDonald’s signed a legally binding agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in February 2023 in which it pledged to protect its staff from sexual harassment.

The EHRC agreement had itself been reached in response to concerns about the handling of sexual harassment complaints made by staff in its UK restaurants. McDonald’s confirmed that it had “fallen short” and it “deeply apologised”, adding that all employees deserved to work in a safe, respectful and inclusive workplace.

Last month, Alistair Macrow, CEO for McDonald’s UK & Ireland, appeared before MPs sitting on the Business and Trade Select Committee. He told them that 29 people had been dismissed over the past year following allegations of sexual harassment.

Liam Byrne MP, the chaire of the Business and Trade Select Committee, asked Macrow if McDonald’s had “basically now become a predator’s paradise”. Macrow said the allegations raised by the BBC were “abhorrent, they are unacceptable and there is no place for them in McDonald’s”, and the company was determined to create a culture where there was “no hiding place for bad actors”.

Despite repeated pledges from Macrow that the firm was taking appropriate action to improve working conditions and clean up behaviour, the situation does not appear to have improved. Since its original investigation into the company was delivered, the EHRC has received 300 reports of harassment, while more than 700 current or former employees are taking legal action and accusing McDonald’s of failing to protect them.

The law in relation to employers’ responsibilities is unambiguous. Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a statutory duty to  protect all staff from discrimination and harassment, regardless of whether they are employees or workers, and regardless of whether they are engaged on a full-time, part-time or casual basis. 

According to the BBC, 89% of McDonald’s 170,000 UK workers were on zero-hours contracts in January 2025, despite the firm’s 2017 announcement that workers would be offered the choice of a flexible or fixed contract offering minimum guaranteed hours. The minimum hours contracts were for a minimum of 30 hours, 16 hours or four hours a week, but most workers opted for flexibility.

Insecure employment

Like many zero-hours workers, McDonald’s staff face employment insecurity, which invariably leaves them reluctant to raise complaints because of fears they will become subject to detrimental treatment as a consequence. It therefore follows that the true extent of discrimination and harassment suffered by McDonald’s staff may be much higher than current figures suggest.

Zero-hours contracts, by their very nature, result in a power imbalance in which an employer holds significantly greater power than the individual. Without any guarantee as to the number or timetable of working hours, staff have little control over their income or schedule, putting them in a vulnerable position whereby they can be easily pressurised into complying with an employer’s demands, or face not being offered hours in future.

The abuse that arises from the inherent power imbalance that exists in zero-hours workplace relationships can lead to significant liabilities for businesses. Employers therefore need to be acutely aware of potential discrimination and harassment in the workplace and what may happen if they fail to address these issues. The ongoing issues at McDonald’s and the company’s abject failure to provide a safe, harassment-free environment have generated a raft of bad publicity which will ultimately affect profits. 

The UK government’s Employment Rights Bill aims to ensure that ‘exploitative’ zero-hours contracts will end. The bill includes measures which are designed to provide workers with greater security and predictability: a right to guaranteed hours, where the number of hours offered reflects that hours worked by the workers during a reference period (which is anticipated to be 12 weeks) along with a right to reasonable notice of shifts, and a right to payment for shifts cancelled or curtailed at short notice.

While these changes will not directly reduce instances of discrimination and harassment, they may help to eradicate the fears and insecurity faced by zero-hours workers. In the meantime, it is clear that McDonald’s still has a long way to go in providing a safe working environment that is free from discrimination and harassment – and in changing public perception that this is indeed the case. How the company handles the growing number of claims made against it will be carefully scrutinised.

If you would like some advice on meeting your employer obligations regarding discrimination and harassment, please contact a member of the Employment team.

 

Government Abolishes Two-Year Rule in Leasehold Reform Act 2024

Posted on: February 6th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Effective from 31st January 2025, the Government has enacted a major change under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LAFRA), which abolishes the two-year ownership rule. This is the first part of the LAFRA to be implemented.

Following this change, Leaseholders will no longer need to wait two years to commence enfranchisement or lease extension processes.

This will have a particular impact on lease extensions or enfranchisement where the flat is subject to an impending sale. Given that new owners will no longer have to wait 2 years to extend their lease or commence enfranchisement proceedings, this will avoid the need for the existing owner to begin this process prior to the sale, if it is required, making the sale process more efficient.

Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook has emphasised this reform marks the initial step towards a comprehensive overhaul of the leasehold system, indicating that efforts will continue to implement the measures outlined in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act.

The implementation of further reforms set out in the LAFRA are planned for Spring.

The updated legislation can be seen here – Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024

Practice guide 27 has now also been updated to reflect this:  Practice guide 27: the leasehold reform legislation – GOV.UK

Skylar McKeith features on ‘Talk to My Lawyer’ podcast

Posted on: February 5th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

In episode 20 of the ‘Talk to My Lawyer’ podcast, Head of Immigration Skylar McKeith explores the dynamic relationship between law and the media. With her unique media presence and international experience, she shares valuable insights into how public narratives impact legal practice. Skylar remarked, “I do think that the media has the potential to educate and shift perceptions by highlighting success stories or showing the positive contributions.

Skylar also talks about two pivotal moments that inspired her career: the empowering message of Legally Blonde and the sobering lessons of a documentary about a wrongful conviction.

You can listen to the podcast here: Talk to My Lawyer podcast 

For more information on our Immigration services, please click here

Cancer: a disability without dispute

Posted on: February 4th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Reports show that since the pandemic there has been a sharp rise in cancer diagnoses in those under the age of 50[1]. The NHS states that 1 in 2 people will have cancer in their lifetime[2] and the dire impact cancer can have on health and quality of life is well known. With cancer more commonly affecting the workforce, what do employers need to be aware of in relation to their employment law obligations to cancer sufferers?

Disability discrimination

Under the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) individuals are protected from disability discrimination at work. This protection is afforded not just to employees, but also to workers and the self-employed.

Legislation defines disability as a physical or mental condition which has a “substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities[3]

Individuals who suffer certain named conditions, including cancer, are protected from discrimination as soon as they are diagnosed, even if it the illness does not immediately have an impact on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities.

Disability discrimination can occur in any of the following situations:  

  • Direct discrimination: an individual is treated less favourably than others because of their cancer (section 13 EqA)
  • Indirect discrimination: a provision, criterion or practice is in place which applies equally across the workforce, but which disadvantages individuals with cancer more and without any objective justification (section 19 EqA)
  • Harassment: an individual suffering from cancer is treated in a way which makes them feel that their dignity has been violated, they are intimidated or humiliated, or their working environment is hostile, degrading or offensive (section 26 EqA)
  • Victimisation: an individual with cancer is subjected to a detriment because they have complained, or intend to make a complaint, about disability discrimination (section 27 EqA)
  • Discrimination arising from disability: an individual with cancer is treated unfavourably because of something arising from their diagnosis, for example, being penalised under an absence management policy because they are required to attend regular hospital appointments and without any objective justification (section 15 EqA)
  • Failure to make reasonable adjustments: an employer fails to make reasonable adjustments to mitigate any substantial disadvantage a person with cancer may have as a consequence of their illness or its treatment (section 20 EqA)

The extent of protection for those with cancer  

Regardless of the stage or severity of the diagnosis, once an individual has been diagnosed with cancer, they are protected from discrimination. The protection is wide ranging: In Lofty v Hamis[4], the EAT held that an employee diagnosed with a non-invasive, pre-cancerous form of melanoma was protected.

Tribunals take a holistic approach when determining the reason for the detrimental treatment. In Willis v NatWest Bank[5], the employment tribunal held that the decision not to renew Ms Willis’ secondment and the termination of her employment was due to her cancer, not redundancy as alleged. A key indicator was that the work she had been contracted to do still had to be carried out following the termination of her employment.  

The protection applies to individuals throughout their employment, including during recruitment and probationary periods. In Lyddall v The Wooldridge Partnership[6], Ms Lyddall suffered from cancer during her probationary period. Her employment was terminated at the end of her probationary period, purportedly for performance reasons. This was said to be the case despite a lack of feedback regarding her performance. The Wooldridge Partnership argued that it had not provided negative feedback due to a desire to avoid causing stress to Ms Lyddall while she was undergoing treatment. The tribunal was not convinced by this argument and held that as Ms Lyddall’s cancer was a factor in her dismissal it was discriminatory.   

Employers’ considerations in relation to employees with cancer  

Employees are not required to disclose their health concerns or diagnoses to their employer. Employers cannot rely on employees’ failure to disclose a diagnosis as a defence to discrimination claims and employers will be liable for discrimination where the facts show they should have known about an employee’s disability. Therefore, employers must be prudent and pay close attention to individuals’ behaviours and routine changes, as these may indicate an ongoing medical condition which may constitute a disability under the EqA.

To ensure that individuals with cancer are not substantially disadvantaged, employers should seek to work collaboratively with their employees to understand any issues that may arise as a consequence of their illness and treatment. Employers should seek to identify any reasonable adjustments that might provide solutions to those concerns. Referrals to occupational health can be valuable as they can help both individuals and employers understand a treatment plan and any side effects the individual may experience. Occupational health reports can also be a helpful too in working out whether any particular issues are likely down to the employee’s illness, or whether they can be properly attributed to other issues, such as performance or conduct concerns.  

Employers should also take proactive steps to ensure a work environment free from discrimination and harmful ‘banter’ relating to disability. Having comprehensive policies in place and providing training on equal opportunities can reduce the risk of discrimination. If an employer receives a complaint of discrimination, it should be properly investigated, and disciplinary action should be taken where necessary. It is important to remember that a one-off act is sufficient to constitute discrimination, and the perpetrator’s intention is irrelevant.  

How we can help

If you have any questions about employers’ responsibilities and liabilities relating to disability discrimination, or if you need assistance regarding employee complaints, please contact a member of our Employment team.

[1] Cancer rates rising in under-50s – Cancer Research UK – Cancer News

[2] Cancer – NHS

[3] Definition of disability in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 – GOV.UK

[4] Mrs C Lofty v Mr S Hamis t/a First Café: UKEAT/0177/17/JOJ – GOV.UK

[5] Ms A Willis v National Westminster Bank plc: 2205821/2020 – GOV.UK

[6] Mrs L Lyddall v The Wooldridge Partnership Ltd: 3314738/2021 – GOV.UK

Lawrence Stephens appoints Memery Crystal Real Estate team

Posted on: January 31st, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Farringdon based full-service law firm Lawrence Stephens is pleased to announce the appointment of Directors John Aynsley, Chris Cagney, Matthew Hind, Nickhil Mandora and Sam Silverman to their Commercial Real Estate department, who all join from the highly regarded Real Estate group at Memery Crystal.

John Aynsley was previously Head of Real Estate at Memery Crystal, specialising in the acquisition, disposal, development, regeneration, financing, and management of high-value assets in commercial real estate. He acts for clients ranging from international real estate funds and listed house builders to private investors.

He is joined by fellow Directors:

  • Chris Cagney, who has extensive experience in a range of commercial real estate matters as well as advising on development projects and property finance transactions.
  • Matthew Hind, who specialises in general commercial real estate with a mixture of investment, development, finance, occupier, and management work. He also has considerable experience dealing with distressed real estate on behalf of banks and insolvency practitioners.
  • Nickhil Mandora, who acts for a wide variety of clients ranging from retail landlords and tenants to institutional lenders and property developers. 
  • Sam Silverman, who has acted for major international and domestic clients including developers, funds, corporate occupiers and supermarkets within the office, industrial and retail sectors.

Commenting on his appointment, Director John Aynsley stated: “We are very pleased to join Lawrence Stephens at this important moment for the firm. Their extraordinary growth over recent years is evidence of their ambition and can-do attitude, which we share and clients clearly love. We look forward to building on what are already strong foundations and working closely alongside the rest of the Lawrence Stephens team.”

Managing Director Steven Bernstein commented: “We are delighted to welcome John and his team to Lawrence Stephens. Their arrival coincides with a period of exciting growth for the firm and will provide both bench strength to our existing team as well as extending the range of expertise and experience we can now offer to both existing clients and new prospects.”

Corporate and Commercial 2024 Deal Highlights 

Posted on: January 30th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Our Corporate and Commercial Team completed an impressive 30+ M&A deals for our clients last year, with around 20% of those with a deal value in excess of £10m. The team has seen a strong start to the year and we look forward with confidence to the rest of 2025.

Head of Corporate and Commercial Jeff Rubenstein commented ”M&A activity shows optimistic signs of growth in 2025. Our clients anticipate more favourable macroeconomic conditions, especially in our sweet spot of owner managed SME businesses, and we’re well placed to assist them in their ambitions.”

Corporate and Commercial 2024 Deal Highlights

Dominic Holden comments on DeepSeek and data protection in The Lawyer

Posted on: January 29th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

With Chinese AI platform DeepSeek rapidly becoming the most downloaded free app in the UK and the US, Director Dominic Holden comments on the potential cybersecurity and data protection concerns, in The Lawyer.

Dominic’s comments were published in The Lawyer, 28 January 2025, and can be found here.

“DeepSeek’s privacy policy makes clear that they will collect your personal data, use it for a broad range of purposes and store it in China. This data is very valuable especially when provided at scale by thousands of users. The same concerns which gave rise to the proposed TikTok ban seem to apply here.

“With China’s national security laws obliging Chinese firms to share data with government agencies, users cannot know what will ultimately become of their data or how it might be used. Great care should be taken by users in deciding what to share with the platform.”

Jake Cohen recognised in The Lawyer Hot 100 2025

Posted on: January 28th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Jake Cohen has been featured in the 2025 edition of The Lawyer Hot 100. This highly anticipated annual list recognises the successes of lawyers from in-house, private practice and the Bar, as well as those who are shaping the legal profession. The 100 lawyers on the list are selected for the excellent work they are doing at the present moment, with talented rising stars rubbing shoulders with eminent lawyers who have years of success behind them.

Jake’s entry highlights his ground-breaking work in the field of sports law, with The Lawyer noting that “Cohen has been advising many athletes since they were academy players and the trust relationship he has with these high-net-worth individuals is such that word of mouth regularly brings new instructions — such as a popular grime artist who is now on the books. Institutional relationships with clubs complement the work for individual athletes: new American owners are another big client base. There’s plenty more market share to go at. This team is set to grow and grow.”

Commenting on his recognition, Jake said: “I’m delighted to be included in a list filled with so many brilliant colleagues who are doing genuinely incredible work. Any personal recognition I receive is a direct result of being very lucky to have an incredible team at Lawrence Stephens – Mo Pasricha, Will Bowyer, Angelique Richardson, Andy Wallis and Anna Chasioti-Metson) and amazing clients who have trusted us with the privilege and responsibility of advising them.”

For more information on the work of our Sports and Entertainment team, please see here

Matt Green provides insights on bitcoin recovery to Thomson Reuters

Posted on: January 27th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

In a recent article published by Thomson Reuters, Matt Green, Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets, explores the topic of recovering lost Bitcoin. Alongside his co-authors, Brian Mondoh, Barrister at Titan Chambers, and Marcin Zarakowski CEO of Token Recovery, Matt addresses the common belief that Bitcoin is a decentralized network and explains how recent developments have made it possible to recover lost Bitcoin assets.

The article highlights two primary scenarios for losing Bitcoin: theft or scam, and losing access to private keys or seed phrases. They delve into the Digital Asset Recovery (DAR) process on the BSV blockchain, which allows for the reassignment of lost or stolen digital coins through valid court orders.

By ensuring compliance with court orders, the BSV network can freeze and reassign assets to their rightful owners, making the recovery process more efficient and cost-effective.

Read the full article here.

Matt Green presents evidence to Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill Special Public Bill Committee

Posted on: January 23rd, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets, Matt Green, recently submitted evidence to the House of Lords Special Public Bill Committee on the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill

Matt argued that the Bill is both necessary and effective. He suggests that legislation, as opposed to common law, would provide the judiciary and policy makers with the confidence to apply property right principles to a new asset class – which is vital for consumers and financial institutions who are increasingly reliant on digital assets. Matt further argues that the Bill prescribes a negative definition which allows for things not yet created or not easily defined as capable of inclusion – providing additional flexibility to policymakers.

He notes that the Bill is a response to nervousness in the judiciary in deviating with established definitions of property, and that the wording is the door ajar to give decision makers the freedom to create new asset classes where required, without falling foul of common law principles.   

Discussing the Bill’s potential for negative or unexpected consequences, Matt warns that the wide wording of the Bill may open the floodgates and policy must therefore be carefully considered and robustly drafted. He also notes that monitoring the benefits and drawbacks of the Bill must be considered on an ad hoc basis by policy makers, to prevent any unexpected consequences.

In all, he senses that although there are more pressing matters at law, including (i) liability of decentralised entities, and liability of coders/ software developers (ii) regulation of digital assets, and the rules of engagement and (iii) the effectiveness of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (2023), the Bill, of a version of it, must be passed to give confidence to the market and to show this jurisdiction is taking digital assets seriously.

In relation to improving the Bill, Matt argues as to why the chosen thing should be an object of personal property rights – suggesting it may be considered as heavy handed. He also notes that it may be useful to include some non-determinative wording as part of this legislation to help guide decision makers when considering property rights.

Click here to read Matt’s evidence in full.

Three Lawrence Stephens directors ranked in the 10th Edition of Spears 500

Posted on: January 23rd, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

The latest edition of the Spear’s 500 is out now and we’re delighted to report that Goli-Michelle Banan, Lawrence Kelly and Stephen Messias have been included.

This is the 10th edition of the Spear’s 500, which is the original and most in-depth guide to advisers to ultra-high-net-worth individuals and family offices. The rankings are compiled by the Spear’s Research Unit and are based entirely on merit.

Congratulations to all those included on this recognition of their expertise and dedication to clients.

Swift completion of £5.9 Million loan secured over prime residential blocks

Posted on: January 20th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

In a recent financial transaction, a £5.9 million loan was secured over three multi-unit residential blocks located in London and Hemel Hempstead. This deal involved multiple linked refinancing transactions of the commercial elements, showcasing the complexity and efficiency of the process.

Anna Christou represented YBS Commercial Mortgages, while Paul Marsh acted for the Borrower. The transaction was completed within an impressive nine working days from the issuance of the Offer, highlighting the dedication and expertise of the teams involved.

A special mention goes to Katie Peck and Amy Bristow, at YBS Commercial Mortgages, whose pivotal role ensured the smooth and timely completion of this significant transaction.

This achievement underscores the importance of collaboration and precision in high-stakes financial dealings, setting a benchmark for future transactions.