Search and find what you need faster.

How toxic masculinity can be harmful for businesses

Posted on: June 11th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker discusses how toxic masculinity is increasingly infiltrating the workplace, with legal and cultural consequences for both employees and employers, in People Management. 

Emma’s article was published in People Management, 10 June 2025.

Toxic masculinity: a hidden cost to employers?

Following the huge success of recent Netflix drama Adolescence, the issue of toxic masculinity has been the subject of much debate. The prime minister has admitted to being worried about toxic behaviour on social media influencing young men, telling the BBC that the UK “may have a problem with boys and young men that we need to address”. Former England football manager Sir Gareth Southgate also recently aired his thoughts in a BBC lecture in which he said “toxic influencers… tricky young men”.

While discussions on this topic have so far focused on the impact of toxic masculinity generally, it is important to recognise the specific workplace challenges that are becoming more prevalent as a result of the corrosive impact of social media and misogynist influencers such as Andrew Tate.

Workplaces are increasingly reporting a subculture of negative behaviours rooted in out-of-date, and often harmful, masculine values. An overabundance of these traditional masculine norms can lead to behaviours including excessive aggression, emotional repression and a constant need to prove dominance. These behaviours can manifest in negative workplace practices; for example, a long-hours, ‘work first’ culture that prioritises work over personal or family life and individual wellbeing. Equally, overly competitive behaviour – such as a focus on winning at all costs, often at the expense of others – can have a negative impact on teamwork, collaboration and innovation. Diversity, inclusion, a healthy work-life balance and employee wellbeing also invariably tend to suffer. Instances of bullying may also increase in workplaces particularly prone to toxic masculinity.

These negative effects are being fuelled by the mandated scrapping of EDI programmes through a series of executive orders issued by President Trump. Across corporate America, EDI is now in sharp retreat with companies as diverse as IBM, Warner Bros, Coca-Cola, Goldman Sachs, McDonald’s and Amazon having scrapped, scaled back or renamed their EDI programmes.

Given that these are large, multinational companies, and many others like them have taken similar steps, the threat to EDI programmes in the UK is significant. While according to a recent survey by the Institute of Directors, 71 per cent of business leaders have no plans to alter their organisation’s approach to EDI following the scaling back of programmes in the US, that still leaves 29 per cent that might.

There are clearly other factors beyond Trump’s anti-EDI agenda affecting the UK’s position, not least the gender pay gap, which has remained stubbornly high. However, the negative effects of toxic masculinity on workplace culture should not be underestimated. As a consequence of the growth of toxic masculinity, businesses face increasing levels of risk, including the risk of legal claims by employees who have been subject to discrimination or harassment because of their sex. Fostering, or even just tolerating, a work environment that is hostile to women can violate employment law. Where successful, legal action against employers can result in costly settlements or awards of damages, as well as reputational damage to the organisation and a knock-on effect on employee morale.

Sensible organisations will heed warnings about toxic masculinity and take steps to mitigate these risks. These steps mostly come down to common sense and include having robust EDI policies, comprehensive training on appropriate workplace behaviours and a resolute commitment to challenging harmful workplace behaviours whenever they appear. However, where a workplace is already seeing significant negative consequences of allowing a toxic culture to persist, more drastic actions, such as disciplinary investigations, may be necessary. 

For further information on our employment services, please click here.

The legal definition of ‘sex’ and its impact on employer obligations and employee benefits

Posted on: May 29th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker explores the recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’, and discusses how this ruling will impact employers’ obligations under the Equality Act 2010, in REBA.

Emma’s article was published in Reward and Employee Benefits Association (REBA), 29 May 2025.

In April, the landmark Supreme Court case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers held that ‘sex’ within the Equality Act 2010 refers exclusively to biological sex. Though this judgment did not create new law, it has fiercely reignited tensions regarding the interplay between the rights of trans people and those of biological men and women. In particular, the divide between supporters of trans rights who believe a person’s sex can be changed, and those with ‘gender critical’ beliefs who believe that sex is biological and immutable.

There has been a significant amount of online misinformation about the implications of the judgment, particularly with regards to the workplace. However, the law today is the same as it was before the clarificatory judgment, with discrimination against trans people for reasons relating to gender reassignment and discrimination against those holding ‘gender critical’ beliefs being unlawful. Yet, because of the misrepresentation of the law on this highly emotive topic, many organisations are confused and fearful of falling foul of their employment law obligations.

So, what should employers be doing in light of the judgment?

Firstly, inclusion is for everyone and there is nothing discriminatory in recognising that the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment relate to groups that have different needs and vulnerabilities. Making toilets and changing rooms ‘gender neutral’ with no single sex provision will breach workplace health and safety legislation, as recognised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interim guidance[1]. It may be tempting to take situations on a case-by-case basis, but this could lead to employment tribunal claims by workers who expect to be able to access single sex spaces for reasons of privacy and dignity.

It is also recommended that employers review their policies and training to assess and act on the risk that what they currently have is unlawful. Policies and training not based on the Equality Act 2010’s definition of sex are likely to result in unlawful conduct for which employers may be sued in the employment tribunal.

In relation to employee benefits, it is normally prudent for employers to ensure equal access for all, however this general rule should be qualified by the intended purpose of the benefit. For example, it would be difficult for employers to justify providing death in service benefits at unequal levels between trans and non-trans people. It would not normally be advisable to provide benefits exclusively for trans workers, though support geared towards those with gender dysphoria or transitioning individuals need not be excluded.

However, there will be situations in which benefits ought not to be offered equally. Providing group-based menopause support to a cohort including transwomen could, for instance, lead to claims of sex-based discrimination or harassment and would offer little benefit to transwomen who will not experience menopause.

If there is any difference in the benefits provided to men and women, they should be provided to employees based on their biological sex. For example, if an employer chooses to offer IVF or other ‘family building’ support, it should be made available to all staff. However, it would not be discriminatory to provide women with more paid leave than transwomen, in recognition of the physical impact of fertility treatments on women.

While some will say this is ‘new’ or ‘developing’ law, that is not the case. In order to remain compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and avoid claims of harassment and discrimination, employers must apply commonsense when considering the purpose for which employee benefits are provided, and the impact of blindly applying a blanket ‘equality rule’.

For more information on our employment services, please go here

[1] An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment | EHRC

Emma Cocker comments on the role of AI in legal services in City AM

Posted on: May 15th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker comments in City AM on the future of AI within law firms, arguing that it can be a useful tool, however lawyers and employers must act cautiously as improper use can have serious legal implications. 

Emma’s comments were published in City AM, 15 May 2025, and can be found here.

“AI undoubtedly plays a huge role in the future of legal services. It will make them more accessible and affordable, which is a huge benefit, given that so many people and small businesses struggle to access legal services. It can also speed up output, with the automation of repetitive and time-consuming tasks helping lawyers to work more efficiently, which also translates to costs savings for clients.

“However AI must be used with caution. Remember that it should be used as a starting point and that the output is only ever as good as the input, which may be vulnerable to online misinformation. As such, AI content must always be reviewed for accuracy and subject to ultimate approval by a human being. We know that AI ‘hallucinates’ and we have already seen lawyers over relying on AI coming unstuck. As well as the professional embarrassment factor, AI could deskill junior lawyers who may not be practicing legal researching and drafting to the same degree as previous generations of lawyers. It may also contribute to a decline in the development of other key skills, such as critical and independent thinking.

“In authorising the first AI-driven law firm, the Solicitors Regulation Authority made it clear that lawyers relying on AI output will be ultimately responsible for the consequences and that professional standards must always be maintained to ensure public trust and confidence in the sector. Those who do use AI improperly may find themselves facing disciplinary proceedings by their employer and the regulator and in cases of ‘AI gone wrong’ there is scope for negligence claims by clients, as well as costs applications by opponents.”

For more information on our Employment services, please click here.

‘Gender critical’ belief discrimination – where are we now?

Posted on: April 24th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Four years ago, the concept of discrimination based on ‘gender critical’ beliefs was unheard of. However, the 2021 decision of Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors paved the way for protection under the Equality Act 2010 for individuals holding gender critical beliefs.  

Despite Forstater, there has been a slew of employment tribunal cases brought by individuals claiming their belief that sex is biological and immutable led their employers to subject them to less favourable treatment. These claimants worked in areas including the NHS, local government, charities, the education sector and even the legal profession. With trans rights supporters claiming that such beliefs are transphobic and hateful, many employers have been confused as to their obligations and fearful of ‘getting it wrong’.

Most recently, in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers it was held that ‘sex’ within the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, reigniting tensions about the interplay between the rights of trans people and the rights of biological men and women. With the Supreme Court’s decision hot off the press, this article summarises some of the key cases and legal principles that have emerged in recent years, helping employers to be confident in their decisions about balancing the rights of all parties to be treated in a way compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and help them to ensure everyone enjoys dignity and respect at work.

Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors (2022)

Maya Forstater’s consulting contract with the Centre for Global Development was not renewed after she published a series of social media messages describing transgender women as men. She brought claims of discrimination, with the employment tribunal initially ruling against her. However the Employment Appeal Tribunal later found that her beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 because they were “worthy of respect in a democratic society“. At a subsequent hearing, the tribunal concluded Ms Forstater had suffered direct discrimination on the basis of her gender-critical beliefs and she was awarded compensation of over £105,500 including for loss of earnings, injury to feelings, aggravated damages and interest.

Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited Garden Court Chambers & Ors (2022)

Barrister Allison Bailey claimed she was discriminated against for her gender-critical views after Garden Court chambers concluded that two of her personal tweets, which included gender critical views, potentially breached her professional obligations as a barrister. Bailey had co-founded LGB Alliance, an advocacy group for the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, which opposed the ‘trans extremism’ it said Stonewall promulgated. Ms Bailey complained to colleagues about Garden Chambers becoming a Stonewall Diversity Champion, saying that Stonewall was complicit in a campaign of intimidation of those who questioned gender self-identity. The tribunal found that Garden Court had discriminated against Ms Bailey and she was awarded £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings, plus interest.

Fahmy v Arts Council England (2023)

Denise Fahmy attended an internal teams meeting where hostile comments were made about people who hold gender critical beliefs. This was in the context of a discussion about the award and removal of a grant to LGB Alliance. A petition was later circulated in which further hostile and intimidating comments were made, leading Ms Fahmy to raise a Dignity at Work complaint, which was not upheld. Leeds Employment Tribunal found in favour of Ms Fahmy, concluding that she had been harassed for her gender-critical beliefs, and shortly afterwards, the parties reached settlement for an undisclosed sum.

Phoenix v Open University (2024)

Joanna Phoenix, a professor, co-signed a letter to the Sunday Times in 2019 in which she made her gender critical beliefs known. She, with others, then established the Gender Critical Research Network, an academic research group promoting research into sex and gender from a gender critical perspective. As a result, she was harassed and discriminated against by colleagues, including in one instance the Deputy Head of Department likening her to “the racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table“. The employment tribunal found that her complaints of direct discrimination and harassment were well-founded and that she had been constructively unfairly (and wrongfully) dismissed. Shortly afterwards the parties reached settlement for an undisclosed sum.

Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (2024)

Roz Adams worked as a counsellor at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Ms Adams held gender critical beliefs and believed that victims of male sexual violence should be able to choose whether to engage with male or female counsellors. In 2021, the centre appointed a trans woman to the post of CEO. Ms Adams warned that giving ambiguous answers to victims who wanted to know the sex of their counsellor could mislead them or lead them to self-exclude from the service. The issue escalated when a colleague announced they were non-binary and changed their name to one that sounded male. Ms Adams asked her manager for clarity on how she should respond if service users asked if the colleague was male, which along with her observations about language used regarding gender critical people (including ‘terf’, bigot and fascist’) led to a deeply flawed disciplinary process against Ms Adams. She resigned, alleging constructive dismissal and discrimination. Delivering a scathing judgment, the tribunal concluded that Ms Adams had been discriminated against and constructively dismissed due to her gender-critical beliefs. Ms Adams was awarded compensation of £68,990 and Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre was ordered to publish a statement apologising.

Meade v Westminster City Counsel and Social Work England (2024)

Rachel Meade, a social worker, posted on a Facebook profile (that was set to private with approximately 40 friends) expressing her gender critical beliefs. One of Ms Meade’s colleagues complained to the regulator about these posts, alleging that they were transphobic and that Ms Meade had deliberately shared posts containing misinformation about the trans community. Following an investigation into the complaint, Ms Meade was told that there was a reasonable prospect that her Fitness to Practise would be found currently impaired because of her ‘discriminatory activity’ on Facebook. She was told that she could either accept the report and a sanction of a one-year warning or have her case referred to a hearing. She chose the former. Ms Meade’s immediate managers confirmed they had no concerns about her practice but she was subsequently suspended on charges of gross misconduct and ultimately issued with a final written warning. The tribunal found that Ms Meade had been harassed on account of her gender critical beliefs, awarding her over £58,000, including aggravated and exemplary damages, reflecting the extent of the wrongs committed by the Respondents.

Frances v Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (2025)

Ms Frances brought claims of constructive dismissal on the basis of her gender-critical belief and also on a separate philosophical belief in the integrity of the civil service. The claims were settled early, but this case was highly unusual in that there was no confidentiality around the settlement, including its high value (£116,000). It also resulted in public statements from two Whitehall permanent secretaries, committing their respective departments to significant redrawing of policies around sex and gender. This case helped to buck the previous trend of litigating gender critical belief cases until the bitter end, following settlement in the cases of Esses v The Metanoia Institute and the UK Council of Psychotherapy and Favaro v City, University of London.

Higgs v Farmor’s School (2025)

Kristie Higgs, pastoral administrator and work experience manager at a school, was dismissed for posts she made on her Facebook profile opposing the view that ‘gender is fluid and not binary’, contending that same-sex marriage cannot be equated with traditional marriage between a man and a woman. A complaint was made by a parent, leading to MS Higgs’ suspension and eventual dismissal. Ms Higgs claimed direct discrimination and harassment. While her claims were initially dismissed on the basis that it was the manner of expression that had caused her dismissal, not her beliefs themselves, the Employment Appeal Tribunal granted her appeal and remitted the case back to the tribunal. Ms Higgs appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ultimately ruled that Ms Higgs’ dismissal constituted unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, emphasising that dismissing an employee merely for expressing a protected belief is unlawful unless the manner of expression is objectionable and the dismissal is a proportionate response.

What should employers be doing in light of these decisions?

It is clear that employers that conduct or condone discrimination against workers with gender critical beliefs are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of an employment tribunal judgment. While this precedent is well established, the recent decision in For Women Scotland has once again brought to the fore the issue of competing protections under the Equality Act 2010. While there is a surfeit of misinformation circulating online that the Supreme Court has ‘removed’ or ‘weakened’ the rights of transgender individuals in favour of those who hold gender critical beliefs, this is incorrect. The law today is the same as it was before last week’s decision and discrimination against trans people for reasons relating to gender reassignment remains unlawful, as does discrimination against those holding gender critical beliefs. However, because of the misrepresentation of the law on this highly emotive topic, many organisations are confused and fearful. Nevertheless, businesses must take a step back from the online noise and focus on a common-sense approach that treats everyone with dignity and respect.

Employers ought to remember that inclusion is for everyone and that there is nothing discriminatory in recognising that the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment relate to groups that have different needs and vulnerabilities. Employers should avoid making statements that disagree with the Equality Act 2010 or the Supreme Court judgment, or that favours or prioritises particular groups. This may lead to claims of sex-based harassment and discrimination as well as discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief.

It is possible to treat trans people with dignity and respect while also applying the Equality Act 2010 definition of sex, and remaining compliant with it. While it may be tempting to seek to avoid conflict, making all spaces ‘gender neutral’ is likely to garner complaints, as well as being in breach of workplace health and safety legislation. It may also be tempting to take situations on a case-by-case basis, but this is likely to lead to non-compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and could lead to employment tribunal claims by workers who expect to be able to access single sex spaces for reasons of privacy and dignity.

It is recommended that employers review their policies and training to assess and act on the risk that what they currently have is unlawful. Policies not based on the Equality Act 2010’s definition of sex are likely to result in unlawful conduct for which employers may be sued in the employment tribunal. Clear language should always be used and the normal standards of workplace and professional conduct must be applied to everyone equally. Set clear expectations around conduct and do not tolerate offensive behaviour in the workplace, whatever the protected characteristic in question. Businesses may see a rise in grievances relating to this topic and while proper grievance policies should always be followed, employers should not entertain vexatious or unreasonable complaints and may need to consider invoking their disciplinary policy for repeat offenders.

If you would like support and advice on making certain that your policies and handbooks ensure your employees are protected, please contact a member of our Employment team.

Corporate and Commercial Spring Newsletter

Posted on: April 9th, 2025 by Alanah Lenten

Read our Spring Newsletter here

Letter from the Editor Charlotte Hamilton

It has been a busy first quarter of 2025 in the corporate, commercial and employment sectors.

In this edition of our Newsletter, I have summarised the report issued by the Investment Security Unit of the Government (ISU) on the effectiveness of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021 (NARs). For businesses in the 17 sectors considered sensitive, the NARs dictate whether a notification must be made to the ISU for any proposed acquisition having considerable impact on the timing of an acquisition.

Becci Collins, Solicitor in our Employment team, has summarised the new right introduced by the Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (General) Regulations 2025 for parents to take neo-natal care leave, to receive statutory neo natal care pay and what steps employers should be taking now.

Ewan Ooi, trainee in our Banking team and Samantha Aldridge, paralegal in our Employment team discuss the importance of careful drafting in legally binding agreements and how it can protect businesses.

They summarise two cases highlighting how enforceability depends on the use of clear and precise wording and why legal advice is needed when drafting the terms of commercial agreements and employment contracts.

Please see the key dates section for upcoming corporate, commercial and employment law updates and as always, please be in touch with any queries.

We will be discontinuing this newsletter after this edition. It will be replaced by our brand new newsletter: ‘The Fineprint’.

The Fineprint

‘The Fineprint’ is designed for founders, entrepreneurs, and owner-managed businesses who are passionate about growing their ventures and staying informed about the latest industry trends and legal updates.

If you’re a business owner, startup founder, or an entrepreneur looking to gain insights, practical advice, and inspiration, this newsletter is for you.

For more information please see here, You can opt out at any time.

Emma Cocker outlines how zero-hours contracts can contribute to sexual harassment in People Management

Posted on: March 18th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker discusses how the prevalence of zero-hours contracts at McDonald’s may have contributed to widespread sexual harassment, in People Management.

Emma’s article was published in People Management, 18 March 2025.

McDonald’s is in expansion mode, with ambitious plans for 200 new restaurants to add to its existing UK network of 1,450 outlets. However, this growth is somewhat overshadowed by persistent allegations of abuse and harassment from those working under the golden arches.

Following allegations by more than 100 current and former staff, a July 2023 BBC investigation into McDonald’s described working conditions as “a toxic culture of sexual assault, harassment, racism and bullying”. According to the BBC, workers as young as 17 had been abused, bullied, groped and harassed. 

The investigation came off the back of McDonald’s signing an agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in February 2023 in which it pledged to protect its staff from sexual harassment. The agreement was reached following concerns about how sexual harassment complaints made by McDonald’s staff were handled. McDonald’s accepted that it had “fallen short” and “deeply apologised”, confirming that every employee deserves to work in a safe, respectful and inclusive workplace. 

However, the problem persists. Appearing before MPs sitting on the business and trade select committee in January 2025, Alistair Macrow, CEO for McDonald’s UK and Ireland, told the committee that 29 people had been dismissed over the past 12 months as a result of sexual harassment allegations. Macrow was asked by the committee chair, Liam Byrne MP, whether McDonald’s had “basically now become a predator’s paradise”. Macrow said the allegations made by the BBC were “abhorrent, unacceptable and there is no place for them in McDonald’s”. He added that the company was determined there should be “no hiding place for bad actors”.

Despite Macrow’s pledges that appropriate action would be taken, the situation does not appear to have improved. Some 300 incidents have been reported to the EHRC, while 700-plus current and former employees are taking legal action against McDonald’s in which they accuse the firm of failing to protect them.

Employers’ responsibilities towards their staff are clearly outlined in the Equality Act 2010, which specifies that they have a statutory duty to protect all employees from discrimination and harassment, regardless of whether they are full time, part time or employed on a zero-hours basis. 

It is widely recognised that zero-hours workers are particularly vulnerable to experiencing discrimination and harassment. Workers engaged in this way face employment insecurity and often fear negative consequences if they complain about working conditions. The BBC states that, as of January 2025, almost 90 per cent of McDonald’s 170,000 UK workforce were on zero-hours contracts. This, along with a predominantly franchise model where local McDonald’s managers are usually responsible for staff recruitment, is likely to be a contributing factor to the present circumstances. 

Without a fixed hours guarantee and the right to reasonable notice of shift changes, vulnerable employees can be easily pressurised into complying with employer demands or find themselves facing financial losses they may not be able to bear.

Last October, the government introduced the employment rights bill, which is designed to bring ‘exploitative’ zero-hours contracts to an end. The draft bill includes a right to guaranteed hours, a right to reasonable notice of shifts and a right to payment for shifts cancelled or curtailed at short notice. It is hoped that these changes will go some way to fixing the power imbalance inherent in zero-hours contracts, whereby the employer holds much more power than the employee. 

Failure to provide a safe, harassment-free environment has led to significant adverse publicity for McDonald’s, putting a spotlight on the risks facing businesses that allow such behaviour to persist. At least in the case of McDonald’s, there appears to be a direct correlation between the use of zero-hours contracts and complaints of discrimination and harassment. As such, employers need to understand the consequences of failing to address potential claims of discrimination and harassment, and the relationship these claims have with zero-hours contracts. 

Moving forwards, people will pay close attention to what McDonald’s does in creating a safe working environment for its employees that is free from discrimination and harassment. In the meantime, much needs to be done to reassure the general public that things have changed, and how the company handles an escalating number of claims will also be closely monitored.

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

Employment law insight: what were the BBC’s obligations during the Huw Edwards scandal?

Posted on: March 7th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

The BBC have come under questioning regarding its handling of the Huw Edwards case in the wake of him pleading guilty to child sex offences on 31 July 2024. There is a particular focus on the period of Edwards’ suspension from July 2023, when he continued to receive his full pay of £475,000 per annum, and also received a pay rise of £40,000 during this time. We now know that the BBC were made aware of his arrest during November 2023. The underlying question here is whether his employer should have dismissed him at this point.

Putting aside the awful nature of his crimes, there is no getting away from the fact that, from an employment law perspective, the BBC had obligations towards Edwards until his resignation in April 2024.

Obligations during suspension

Once an employer is made aware of allegations of criminal activity and criminal charges relating to its employee, they are obligated to investigate to try and obtain as much information as possible.

Right to suspend

In most cases of gross misconduct (and more serious cases of simple misconduct), employers should consider suspending an employee pending the results of their investigation. Whilst suspension is by no means the default position, the ACAS code of Practice suggests suspension is acceptable if the employer reasonably believes it would be protecting any of the following:

  • the investigation: for example, if you’re concerned about someone damaging evidence or influencing witnesses;
  • the business: for example if there’s a genuine risk to your customers, property or business interests;
  • other staff; or
  • the person under investigation.

During the suspension, the employer will need to carefully consider decisions surrounding pay. Unless there is a clear contractual right to do so, the employer is not entitled to suspend a salaried employee without pay or contractual benefits.

In this case, if the BBC withheld or reduced Edward’s pay during his suspension, there would have been a risk of legal action by Edwards, although it is questionable whether Edwards would have wished to attract further media attention by instigating legal proceedings. In fact, there would still have been a risk of legal action, such as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal even if the contract allowed reduced or no pay during suspension.  

Would it have been fair to dismiss Edwards from November 2023, had he not resigned in April 2024?

Following the allegations, careful consideration ought to have been given to the pending disciplinary process and what action to take.

Prior to any dismissal, employers should consider the following:  

  • nature of the conduct: in cases of misconduct, consider whether actions or allegations relating to actions outside of work are sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action at work. Sometimes even cases that appear to be obvious misconduct affecting employment can lead to successful claims of unfair dismissal, such as in Walters v Asda Stores.
  • the evidence: when considering dismissal, the employer should endeavour to have as much information as possible prior to making any decision.
  • employee’s health: prior to any dismissal, the employer ought to consider whether there are any allegations or information to suggest ill-health on the part of the employee. If so, the employer ought to investigate the employee’s health. If the employee refuses to co-operate, it may be fair for the employer to dismiss.
  • the procedure: an employer must still follow a fair and reasonable procedure if an employee is accused of misconduct, including gross misconduct. What is fair and reasonable will vary from case to case, but there are certain minimum requirements, which ought to be followed in all cases. For example, employees have the right to be accompanied by a colleague or Trade Union representative at a disciplinary hearing.

In the case of Edwards, the complexity arises from the fact his criminal activity and convictions were unrelated to his work. Further, at the time of his arrest, the BBC claimed it did not have all the details surrounding the offences. It was also known that Edwards was hospitalized due to experiencing severe mental health issues which had worsened since the allegations were made. 

While criminal allegations or convictions alone may not justify disciplinary action or dismissal, there may still be grounds to dismiss. An employer may be able to establish a potentially fair reason for dismissal, if they can show there is misconduct sufficiently serious to justify dismissal for some other substantial reason. 

Employers may consider that an employee’s conduct (in this case criminal conduct outside of the workplace) is sufficiently serious to justify a dismissal on the basis that continuing to employ them would have a reputational impact. They would have to consider the nature of the offence and whether this will attract negative publicity. If so, they would need to consider reputational risk, as well as their health and safety obligations towards other staff, or service users. 

In the case of Edwards, given the nature of his offending, the reputational damage would have had a huge negative effect on the reputation of the BBC – a body that must be seen to uphold the highest standards. Had Edwards not resigned and the BBC continued to employ him, this would have exposed the BBC to disrepute, scandal and contempt. Edward’s link to the BBC could have caused sufficient damage to its reputation to affect the amount of licence revenue the BBC could generate for years to come.   

The BBC probably had all these considerations in mind when it decided not to dismiss Edwards. Edwards had not been found, or pled, guilty and the complex investigation was still ongoing. He was also hospitalised due to a mental health crisis. Failing to follow a fair and reasonable procedure, and disregarding his ill-health, could have exposed the BBC to liability for a claim of unfair dismissal. However, had Edwards not resigned in April 2024, the BBC would have had fair reason to dismiss him following his guilty plea.

When should an employer take action against the employee?

There are no hard and fast rules to apply when determining whether to go ahead with disciplinary proceedings when there is a criminal trial pending. The most important thing is for the employer to conduct its own investigations into the issues and to properly consider the options available in line with their requirements in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employers have discretion whether to postpone disciplinary action where the employee’s misconduct is also the subject of a criminal investigation and prosecution. Even in emotive cases such as this, an employer ought to be careful not to act precipitously. 

BBC’s obligations to other staff

Whistleblowers who gave evidence to the BBC internal inquiry into Huw Edwards have criticised the way it was handled. One staff member says they were sent flirtatious private messages by the presenter in 2023. They complained that they had not been kept informed about the progress of the inquiry. Another staff member claimed that Edwards sent suggestive messages alongside a picture of his hotel suite.

Such allegations may constitute whistleblowing, which affords the employee various protections from dismissal and detriment, on the ground that they have made a protected disclosure. Providing effective protection for whistleblowers is important for several reasons, including:

  • encouraging a speak-up culture;
  • internal risk control;
  • limiting reputational damage;
  • protecting staff morale; and
  • avoiding unnecessary litigation.

If an employee is dismissed or is subjected to detriment on the ground that they have made a protected disclosure, this can expose the employer to potential tribunal claims for automatically unfair dismissal or whistleblowing detriment. Importantly, financial compensation in respect of these claims is uncapped, so employer liability can be significant.

When someone blows the whistle, the employer should explain its procedures for making a disclosure and whether the whistleblower can expect to receive any feedback. Often a whistleblower expects to influence the action the employer might take, or expects to make a judgement on whether an issue has been resolved, but this will rarely be appropriate.  

It is in the employer’s best interests to deal with a whistleblowing disclosure promptly. This allows the employer to fully investigate, make any further necessary enquiries and determine any appropriate action.  

There are several things an employer should do when a whistleblowing disclosure is made. It is important to make sure that as an employer, you:

  • handle any whistleblowing complaint fairly and consistently;
  • follow any process your organisation has for whistleblowing; and
  • keep the identity of the whistleblower confidential. 

The Government’s Whistleblowing Code of Practice encourages clear and prompt communications between the whistleblower and the employer. They should provide feedback to whistleblowers, within the confines of their internal policies and procedures. This is vital so that whistleblowers understand how their disclosure has been handled and dealt with. Failing to do so may result in the whistleblower approaching other individuals or organisations to blow the whistle externally. Therefore, it is strongly advisable for an employer to have a policy which explains the benefits of making a disclosure, the process and how the disclosure will be dealt with.

Takeaways from this case

It is reasonable to say that this case is far more complex than it may have initially appeared. If you need further guidance in relation to employee misconduct, suspension or dismissal, or you need a whistleblowing or disciplinary policy, please speak to our specialist employment team.

 

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 chair 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.

 

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

Emma Cocker comments on managing discrimination and harassment in the workplace

Posted on: January 9th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker comments on the legal action facing McDonald’s over allegations of widespread harassment and discrimination, and discusses employers’ obligations to protect their staff and workplace.

Emma’s comments were published in Business Matters Magazine, 7 January 2025, and can be found here.

“All employers have duties to protect their staff against discrimination and harassment in the workplace – obligations which apply regardless of whether people are engaged on a full-time, part-time or zero hours basis.

“However, with most McDonald’s workers being engaged on a zero hours basis, individuals will be acutely aware of their employment insecurity. They are also likely fearful of being subjected to detrimental treatment for raising complaints. The abuse which arises from the imbalance of power inherent in these types of workplace relationships can lead to significant liability for businesses, of which employers must be conscious.

“It would appear that McDonald’s still has a long way to go in providing a safe working environment free from discrimination and harassment. How they handle these claims will likely be carefully scrutinised. The longer businesses allow this kind of behaviour to persist, the longer the list of grievances and legal claims they will face.”

For more information on our Employment services, click here

Joanne Leach, Emma Cocker and Becci Collins examine the government’s crackdown on foreign labour exploitation, in People Management

Posted on: December 19th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associates Joanne Leach and Emma Cocker and Solicitor Becci Collins explore the government’s recently announced plans to tighten immigration systems, and discuss how this will impact employers and employees, in People Management.

Joanne, Emma and Becci’s article was published in People Management, 17 December 2024, and can be found here.

Government cracks down on foreign labour exploitation: what employers need to know

Emma Cocker, Joanne Leach and Becci Collins explain recently announced plans to tighten immigration systems, and how they will affect business that hire overseas talent.

On 28 November 2024, the government announced that it intends to tighten immigration worker systems by extending categories of breaches, as well as strengthening sanctions. In its pre-election manifesto, the government stated that it intended “to reduce net migration through proper control and management of the visa framework”. The proposed new rules are evident of the government’s intent to “crackdown on visa abuse and prevent exploitation”.

The government proposes extending the circumstances in which sanctions can be issued to companies that sponsor overseas workers, to include those who commit serious employment breaches. It is expected that this will include the reforms proposed in the Employment Rights Bill published in October, as well as existing rights, such as the entitlement to national minimum wage. However it is unclear how a company will be judged to be in breach of employment laws. Such a finding could potentially derive from a successful employment tribunal claim, or a new regulatory body may be tasked with assessing failure to comply with minimum standards.

The current sanctions available to enforcement officers in relation to companies held in breach of immigration laws can only be issued for a period of 12 months. For those who commit repeat offences, this period will be doubled to “at least” two years, suggesting there is a possibility of longer sanction periods.

There will also to be a new initiative to take pre-emptive action against those who are suspected of committing serious breaches.  Where there are already signs of rule breaking, the government intends to use action plans to bind businesses to take specified steps to improve and correct issues. Currently, action plans can be implemented for a period of three months. However, this is to be extended to 12 months. If the required improvements are not made, the sponsor’s licence will be revoked.

Tougher rules to prevent companies exploiting cheap foreign labour should be welcomed. Workforces are strengthened by the diversity brought to organisations by migrant workers and those individuals deserve not to be exploited. This issue is also addressed by proposals that intend to prohibit exploitation by passing on the costs of recruiting overseas workers to the individual, sometimes at a premium or excessive rate. These costs can result in individuals being left with unfair and unmanageable debts to their employers. The proposal to ban these practices will help to ensure that only businesses who genuinely require overseas workers – and can afford to recruit them in a fair and respectful way – benefit from the immigration system.

Prudent employers will take the recently published statistics as a warning, indicating how seriously the government takes the issues of tackling abuse and failing to adhere to the immigration system rules. For example:

  • In October 2024, there were 856 visits conducted to businesses suspected of employing illegal workers, a 55% increase on visits carried out in October 2023.
  • Between January and October 2024, more than 6,600 visits were made, a 22% increase on the same period in 2023.
  • Between January and October 2024, over 4,600 arrests were made, a 21% increase on the same period in 2023.

The government’s intention to expand the circumstances in which sanctions can be issued to include employment law breaches, and to extend the penalty from being banned from hiring overseas workers from one year to two, will shift the compliance landscape considerably. Further extending the power of Home Office officials to permanently withdraw a company’s sponsorship licence if they breach employment laws could have catastrophic consequences for businesses relying on an overseas workforce. However, it seems that the proposed expansion only applies to companies. It may be more effective to increase the sanctions on individuals who facilitate these breaches – perhaps further changes are to come before the draft legislation reaches parliament.

It is uncertain when we can expect this law to come into effect, but we shouldn’t expect this to be the final crackdown by the government. We may also see the reintroduction of the resident labour market test, or salary thresholds and visa fees being increased. Hopefully, the government will consult early as to how these changes may be implemented but, in the meantime, companies effectively have a grace period to get their house in order.

Companies should take an active approach to ensure compliance in all areas of employment and immigration law and they should do more than take a simple ‘tick box’ approach. Employers should review their policies and procedures to ensure they are up to date and meet minimum standards to avoid the above-mentioned sanctions, as well as the reputational damage and disruption to the running of a business held to be in breach of immigration and/or employment laws.

This announcement should serve as a wake-up call to all employers that they must comply with employment laws as well as immigration rules, otherwise they will face increasingly severe consequences of enforcement.

If you have any questions about the government’s plans and how you can ensure your business is complying with employment and immigration laws, please contact a member of the Employment team.

Seasonal parties and employer liability for acts of misconduct by employees

Posted on: December 6th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

‘What happens on a staff night out, stays on a staff night out’

The holiday season is well underway with Christmas parties planned and booked. However, with seasonal joy and merriment comes a warning: inappropriate acts carried out by staff at company events can lead to liability on the part of employers.  

While it is well known and accepted that employers may be liable for inappropriate conduct by staff members in ‘the workplace’ and during office hours, employers are often less well versed in how to deal with inappropriate conduct at work-related events. So where is the line between work and non-work-related events, and how can employers best protect themselves?

Events outside the workplace and outside of working time

The law states that employers are liable for acts of harassment and sexual harassment carried out by their employees ‘in the course of employment’.

Despite this, there is a common and somewhat dangerous misconception that “what happens on a staff night out, stays on a staff night out.” This was the exact sentiment declared by a manager to Ms Pealing, a junior employee, before he attempted to place a banknote in her cleavage[1]. The respondents’ representative submitted that the manager’s conduct “wasn’t in works time, nor was it on works premises; it happened outside of work,” suggesting the employer would not be liable for the manager’s sexual harassment.

In Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v. Stubbs[2], the Employment Appeal Tribunal acknowledged that the dividing line between employment and off-duty conduct can become especially blurred where social events involving colleagues are concerned. Further, in Lister & Ors v. Hesley Hall Ltd[3], the House of Lords held that the question to be asked is whether the employee’s wrongful acts were “so closely connected with his or her employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable”.

In the present case, the night out was attended almost exclusively by the first respondent’s employees. The premises at which the event took place was closed for the evening, and the two directors of the respondent company made a financial contribution to the night out. For these reasons, the Tribunal arrived at the unanimous view that there was a sufficiently ‘close connection’ between the employer and the incident to render it just that the employer should be vicariously liable for the manager’s sexual harassment.

The claimant in this case said she was left feeling “objectified” and “humiliated” and was awarded more than £5,000 in compensation.


Christmas parties in the employment tribunal

Each year the employment tribunal publishes a report on cases heard. This year to date, ten employment tribunal claims have cited Christmas parties and one third of the reported cases related to sexual harassment and/or discrimination related to sex.  

Employers must be aware that work-related events carry risk, in particular, where alcohol is involved. Sexual or sex-based harassment and discrimination is the largest area of risk, with the heady combination of alcohol and seasonal jollity sometimes becoming a toxic combination clouding employees’ judgement.

In addition to Ms Pealing’s case described above, there are a number of other cases which highlight the risks arising from such events, including:

  • In P v Chrest Nicholson Operations Limited[4], P’s complaints of harassment were upheld and her employer was liable, following a colleague of P attempting to kiss them whilst travelling in a taxi to a hotel following the company Christmas party, and P subsequently being raped by her colleague.
  • In Phillips v Pontcanne Pub Company Limited[5], Ms Phillips brought a successful constructive dismissal claim after she was put in a ‘playful’ headlock by a colleague during the company Christmas party which left her unconscious.


What steps can employers take to mitigate risk arising from workplace events?

While it is unlikely that employers will be able to eliminate all risks arising from workplace events, there are steps that can and should be taken both preventatively and following any complaint, to avoid escalation to an employment tribunal claim.

Preventative steps are even more important since the introduction in October of the new requirement for employers to take a positive action to prevent sexual harassment. Under the Worker Protection Act 2023 employers must take ‘reasonable steps’ to actively prevent the sexual harassment of their employees. If they don’t and the worst happens, they may be liable for compensation plus an additional uplift of 25% on the total compensation in relation to such failures. Examples of preventative steps include:

  • Carrying out risk assessments of the workplace and any particular events;
  • Implementing (or updating) policies relating to discrimination, harassment and disciplinary and grievance procedures; and
  • Training the workforce on what constitutes discrimination and harassment, the employer’s behavioural expectations and what to do if they are a victim.

As well as the positive duty to prevent sexual harassment, the law on harassment may afford an employer a defence to a claim of vicarious liability by showing that they took ‘all reasonable steps’ to avoid harassment (which is a higher bar than the ‘reasonable steps’ required under the preventative duty). An example of such a defence succeeding (albeit in the context of a personal injury claim) can be seen in the case of Shelbourne v Cancer Research UK[6] where the employer had risk assessed the event and sought to minimise any risks identified by hiring additional security guards and so they were not liable for the injuries suffered by one employee who was assaulted by another employee.

Employers should also be aware of the culture they are creating. The effect on the victim of any harassment is viewed subjectively, meaning that the effect is viewed through the eyes of the victim. As such, any claims that the behaviours were ‘banter’ or ‘a compliment’ are not an adequate defence. Employers should aim to cultivate a culture of respect and inclusivity and make it clear that discrimination and harassment will not be tolerated and will lead to disciplinary action.

If complaints of discrimination or harassment are made, these should be properly investigated, and disciplinary action meted out where necessary. In addition, complainants should never be treated less favourably for raising issues of discrimination and harassment.

How we can help

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

 

Sources:

[1] 8000363.2024_-_Miss_Freya_Pealing_v_1__The_Croft_Aberdeen_Ltd_2__Andrew_Robert_Eagar_-_Judgment.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

[2] [1999] ICR 547

[3] [2001] ICR 665

[4] P v Crest Nicholson plc and Crest Nicholson Operations Limited: 3311744/2020 and 3313454/2020

[5] Phillips v Pontcanne Pub Company Ltd: 1600719/2018

[6] [2019] EWHC 842 (QB)