Search and find what you need faster.

The Employment Rights Bill: The journey so far

Posted on: July 21st, 2025 by Ella Darnell

The Employment Rights Bill – the journey so far

Published in October 2024, the Employment Rights Bill (‘the Bill’) introduced 28 significant changes to transform employment law. The changes are comprehensive and will transform many aspects of employment. Affecting all industries, the Bill will impact all employees, and every business which engages workers.

As a key component in the Government’s ‘Make Work Pay’ plan, the aim of introducing the bill is simple, to improve employment rights for workers. The proposed changes are hoped to help more people stay in work and consequently for living standards to be improved. This week, we shall be publishing a series, taking each of the implementation stages in turn to explain the anticipated changes, concluding on Friday with considerations as to what employers can do to prepare.

Since October 2024, the Bill has made its way through many of the required stages, and on 1 July 2025, the government published a roadmap for its delivery. Most recently in parliament on 7 July 2025, the Bill is currently in the final stages in the House of Lords (the Report stage). Once the Bill is passed by the House of Lords, it will return to the House of Commons for consideration of the amendments made.

The projected road map provides employers with advanced warning of the order and dates the changes shall come into effect. While the implementation dates and the anticipated changes to the law may alter, proactive and prudent employers will take this time to educate themselves on what is expected, in order to ensure it is fully prepared. The saying “fail to prepare, prepare to fail” has never felt more relevant to employment law.

The roadmap

The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent in autumn this year, and as early as September. As the first week of school summer holidays is upon us, and many employers are working with a reduced workforce, it is imperative that the upcoming changes are not overlooked and preparation is not postponed.

Whilst there is no guarantee the Bill will receive Royal Assent as planned, as the biggest changes proposed come from within the Government, it is hoped that they will not delay the Bill’s implementation. Employers must keep abreast of the immediate changes and developments as well as those expected in April 2026, and subsequent changes in 2027. to ensure compliance and reduce the risk of complaints and litigation.

Immediate effect and winter 2025

Repeal the Strikes (Minimum Services Levels) Act 2023 and the majority of the Trade Union Act 2016

Only recently introduced by the previous Conservative Government, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 provided the government the right to set out the minimum service level to be provided during strike action in the following industries:

  • Border security;
  • Decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel;
  • Education services;
  • Fire and rescue services;
  • Health services; and
  • Transport services.

The Trade Union Act 2016 introduced a number of restrictions on strikes, including restrictions on picketing, higher ballot thresholds and the requirement to provide longer notice periods.

The Bill is currently being amended to including provisions the Government consulted on in December last year in relation to simplify the information unions will be required to provide employers in relation to industrial action. We await confirmation of what the simplified information shall be. By reducing the information required, it is hoped that the scope for employers to request injunctions preventing industrial actions on the basis of a union’s failure to comply with the legislative requirements is reduced.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 shall be repealed as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent as will the majority of the Trade Union Act 2016, without consultation.

Protection for taking part in industrial action and being a trade union member

The Supreme Court recently held in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer that an employee who participates in industrial action is not protected from detriments short of dismissal for doing so.

As currently drafted, the Bill would introduce protection from detriments short of dismissal for employees who take part in industrial action. The rights of representatives of recognised trade unions would also be increased, to enable them to better support their members. Adding to a representative’s current right to paid time off, they would also be provided with reasonable facilities and accommodations to carry out their duties.

Consultation as to the protections and rights of trade unions are expected to begin as soon as winter 2025 with an intended implementation date in October 2026.

If you would like more advice on the changes brought by this Bill and your obligations as an employer, please contact our Employment team

Ethnic abuse in the workplace – a practical guide for employers

Posted on: July 18th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Under the Equality Act 2010, employers are legally required to protect their employees from abuse or discrimination related to ‘protected characteristics’. There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage, pregnancy, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Discrimination can take several forms, including:

  • Direct discrimination: treating someone less favourably simply because they hold a particular characteristic;
  • Indirect discrimination: treating everyone the same, which results in an adverse effect on people with a particular protected characteristic (which cannot be justified);
  • Harassment: unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating or offensive environment; and
  • Victimisation: subjecting someone to a detriment because they have done (or will do) something in connection with the Equality Act 2010 (including make complaints about discrimination).

Ethnic abuse in the workplace

We were recently instructed by an individual who was subjected to serious and disturbing abuse by her colleagues, based on her ethnic background and assumptions about her political opinions. There was no evidence to support any of these contentions, which had been circulated within the workplace as if they were fact. This conduct constituted discrimination, bullying and harassment. We were able to negotiate significant compensation for our client in relation to these potential claims, which would have caused reputational damage to her employer if they had been contested in an open tribunal.

Practical advice for employers

Abuse on the basis of ethnicity may manifest through offensive remarks, exclusionary behaviour, or more overt acts of hostility. Employers must be alert to the ways in which global events can trigger or exacerbate such conduct in the workplace, as they increasingly influence interpersonal dynamics and employee relations within diverse workforces.

The war in Ukraine, Israeli action in Gaza and the conflict between Israel and Iran are fuelling heightened sensitivities in UK workplaces. Employers must take steps to safeguard employees from discrimination, harassment, victimisation, or unfair treatment based on their religion, national origin and/or perceived political stance.

To minimise risk of Equality Act 2010 claims, employers should aim to provide a safe and inclusive work environment in which employees are able to feel comfortable raising concerns. Employers should avoid stereotyping or making assumptions about employees based on nationality. Indeed, they can help to prevent this by offering training on unconscious bias and cultural sensitivity.

Employers are advised to:

  • review and reinforce anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies with a particular emphasis on preventing xenophobic or politically charged behaviour, including by promoting respectful dialogue in the workplace;
  • train managers in how to handle sensitive conversations and communications in a way which balances competing rights and freedoms;
  • monitor for signs of workplace tension or exclusion based on perceived religion, national origin or political or religious affiliations;
  • handle any grievances linked to political or religious tensions robustly;
  • manage reputational risk where employee conduct or public statements intersect with sensitive geopolitical issues, via disciplinary proceedings where appropriate; and

  • be alert to signs of stress presented by employees linked to external geopolitical events and signpost them towards mental health resources.

Take action today—review your workplace policies and ensure your team is equipped to prevent and address ethnic abuse. Contact the Lawrence Stephens employment team.

Gregg Wallace sacked by BBC: Businesses must take a strong stance against workplace misconduct

Posted on: July 9th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Following the news that presenter Gregg Wallace has been sacked by the BBC over an inquiry into alleged misconduct, Solicitor Becci Collins comments on the importance of businesses taking strong and immediate action against inappropriate behavior in the workplace.

Becci’s comments were published in Personnel Today, 9 July 2025, and can be found here.

Becci Collins, a solicitor in the employment team at Lawrence Stephens, said Wallace’s dismissal was “a stark reminder that inappropriate workplace behaviour will not be tolerated.

“However it is concerning that individuals have reported concerns about his behaviour for many years without action being taken.

“Employers must do better in complying with their obligations to employees, particularly in relation to their obligation to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

“The reputation and seniority of the individuals about whom complaints are made must have no bearing on how those complaints are investigated, what outcomes are reached or the punishments meted out to those who violate the law on harassment and discrimination.”

To find out more about employer obligations and how we can help, please click here

Ban on non-disclosure agreements: victory or vanity?

Posted on: July 9th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

The government’s press release of 8 July 2025[1] sets out its proposal to amend the Employment Rights Bill (‘ERB’) to introduce a statutory ban on employers using non-disclosure agreements (‘NDAs’) in cases where an employee alleges harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination.

While the ERB already contained a variation to the Employment Rights Act 1996 to extend the scope of whistleblowing legislation to include allegations of sexual harassment, this new amendment could completely rewrite the rules on how employers deal with claims of harassment and discrimination by employees. But is it really the glorious victory campaigners make it out to be?

What is an NDA?

In employment law, NDAs are most commonly used in the form of a confidentiality clause. They are found in a number of employment-related documents, including contracts of employment.

It has also been standard practice for some time that settlement agreements entered into between employers and employees (either on termination of the employee’s employment or as part of the settlement of an ongoing Employment Tribunal claim) include a confidentiality clause preventing the disclosure of the existence of the settlement agreement. Crucially, they also prevent the disclosure of the circumstances leading up to the settlement agreement. This has traditionally been one of the biggest benefits for employers, allowing them to minimise the risk of adverse PR arising from Employment Tribunal claims. So why would the government take that benefit away?

The government’s rationale

The current proposal is not to ban NDAs in their entirety. However, their use will be severely curtailed in that they will be barred in cases of discrimination and harassment. 

There are existing mechanisms in place that restrict the use of NDAs. For example, any attempt to prevent an employee from making a protected disclosure under whistleblowing legislation (for example reporting a criminal offence to the authorities) is unenforceable. There has also been non-statutory guidance published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission[1] in place since 2019 on the use of confidentiality agreements in discrimination, harassment and victimisation cases. However, these protections have been criticised as too weak and that is why the government has tabled this amendment to the ERB. Campaigners say that NDAs have been misused for too long, ‘silencing’ victims of discrimination and harassment by preventing them from speaking about their experiences in the workplace. High profile cases such as that of Zelda Perkins (an ex-assistant of Harvey Weinstein) who has fought the NDA she signed for the last eight years, highlight why campaigners felt this change was needed.  

Effect on settlement agreements

If passed, the ban will mean that any NDAs that seek to prevent an employee disclosing an allegation of harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination will be unenforceable.

While this change will affect the use of NDAs in any employment documentation, the change will be most keenly felt in relation to settlement agreements.

These agreements have an important place in settling employment disputes, providing certainty and closure for both employees and employers. There is a risk that the government’s proposal will place employees at a disadvantage because employers may be less inclined to enter into settlements when they no longer have the comfort that the circumstances complained of, and any settlement reached, will remain confidential. This may force employees to pursue their claim via the Employment Tribunal, a process which is expensive and arduous, particularly due to the extreme delays within the Tribunal service. For these reasons, the government is unlikely to achieve its aim of ensuring that employees are no longer forced to suffer in silence because instead they may be forced to either walk away with nothing, or simply ‘put up and shut up’.

That said, if the ban on NDAs does come into force, settlement agreements will remain an important mechanism for employers in dealing with employment disputes because:

  • With the current Tribunal backlog, the average time from issuing a claim to a final hearing is over a year (and more commonly, over 18 months in cases of discrimination). This means that seeing cases all the way through the Tribunal process will result in significant legal costs.
  • In addition, litigation is distracting and time consuming, sucking up resources that could be used elsewhere.
  • Key witnesses may have left the business prior to a final hearing, meaning the company won’t be best placed to defend itself.
  • The ERB is a significant overhaul of employment legislation and creates several ‘Day 1’ rights for employees, including protection against unfair dismissal, which will further increase the wait time for Employment Tribunal claims.
  • In matters not involving allegations of harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination, the ban has no effect.

When will this be implemented?

The government’s July 2025 roadmap for implementing the ERB[2] describes a phased approach to implementation. Some changes will take effect on the day the ERB is given Royal Assent, while others will take effect from April 2026 and October 2026. It is not yet known when this amendment, if passed, will take effect, but it would be no later than 2027.

Get in touch if you require further guidance on the use of NDAs or in relation to allegations of harassment, sexual harassment or discrimination.

[1] Government Press Release: Press release: Ban on controversial NDAs silencing abuse

[2] Implementing the Employment Rights Bill – Our roadmap for delivering change

 

 

 

FCA Widens Scope of Non-Financial Misconduct Rules

Posted on: July 3rd, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker comments on the FCA’s announcement that it will treat bullying and harassment as serious ‘non-financial misconduct’ across all regulated firms – not just banks.

Emma’s comments were published in Personnel Today, 2 July 2025, and can be found here.

“For too long there has been a mismatch between what the FCA’s rules say about non-financial misconduct and what has actually been said and done about such behaviour.

“Under these new guidelines, poor personal behaviour will be treated in the same way as financial misconduct, meaning it will need to be shared in regulatory references to the FCA. As such, it will be much harder for individuals to move from firm to firm to escape their disrepute.

“In addition to the implications on individuals, the new rules will help the regulator to spot cultural failings in firms, which in turn helps to identify instances of poor decision making and risk management, both of which are vitally important qualities in this industry.”

For more information on our employment services, please click here

Beyond the Crowd: The People Behind Events and the Contracts That Empower Them

Posted on: June 27th, 2025 by Alanah Lenten

As Glastonbury welcomed hundreds of thousands of festival-goers this summer, most of us were preoccupied with set times, glitter face paint, and avoiding sunstroke. But behind the scenes, it’s not just the headliners who deserve your attention. For founders, entrepreneurs, and anyone involved in running events—whether that’s a one-off music festival, tennis events involving copious amounts of strawberries and cream, or a touring experience—it’s crucial to understand who you’re hiring, how, and what that means legally.

The rise of the gig economy reshaped the employment landscape. It’s provided event organisers with the flexibility they require and permitted individuals to work on their terms. Employers have often assumed short-term or freelance roles offer a convenient solution to the running of large scale events. However, the gig economy is now itself being reshaped following legal challenges focusing on providing greater protection for those engaged in working arrangements that are a-typical. In 2017, 700 temporary workers were terminated by Glastonbury organisers after two days when they had reported promise of 2 weeks work, leaving them stranded having travelled from overseas to help with the Glastonbury clean up and left individuals out of pocket. This led to alleged mishandling of employment contracts and subsequently a tidal wave of negative PR for the organisers. 

So, as you plan your next big event, here’s what you need to consider about employment status; and why simply calling someone a “freelancer” doesn’t make it so.

From Headliner to Hospitality: Who’s Working Your Event?

Every successful event is powered by a complex team: from the riggers and sound engineers, to brand ambassadors, hospitality staff, and social media teams. Whether you’re a founder outsourcing your activation at a major event, or you’re hosting something yourself, you’ll likely be engaging a mix of:

  • Employees
  • Workers
  • Self-employed contractors

While the Government has proposed removing the worker status, for now, we retain the three. Employees have the most comprehensive employment rights, while workers have fewer (for example, they do not have protection from unfair dismissal). Self-employed contractors generally only have the rights contained within their agreements with their client.

Each status comes with different rights, responsibilities, and risks.

Why Getting It Wrong Isn’t an Option

It might seem harmless to take a “casual” approach for short-term or seasonal work. But misclassifying someone, intentionally or not, can result in serious consequences. And in an era of rising scrutiny, your event might be over in a weekend, but the consequences could last much longer.

Some of the most common pitfalls include:

  • Misuse of zero-hour contracts
    In 2017, the organisers of the Glastonbury Festival were accused of hiring 700 workers from across Europe on zero-hour contracts to act as litter pickers, cleaning the site after the festival had ended. The workers were expecting two weeks of paid employment. However, they were fired two days later, leaving hundreds stranded in the Somerset countryside and out of pocket.
  • Unpaid holiday pay and rest breaks
    Individuals are often required to work back-to-back 18-hour days, which could breach the legal minimum requirement of rest breaks prescribed by the Working Time Regulations 1998.
  • Health and safety breaches
    The performing arts union, Bectu, surveyed 100 music festival workers. The results were worrying; half of the people questioned reported feeling unsafe at work, and a third reported having experienced a risk to their physical safety.
  • Non-payment of tax and National Insurance
    A nightclub owner is due to be sentenced this year for deducting tax and National Insurance from employees’ salaries but failed to pass the money on to HMRC.
  • Employment tribunal claims for unfair dismissal or unlawful deductions
    In March 2022, P&O Ferries sacked 800 seafarers without notice, replacing them with cheaper agency workers. Many of the affected employees filed employment tribunal claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages. The company admitted it knowingly broke the law by not consulting unions or employees, which is required under UK employment law.

It is important that organiser’s get employment status correct as:

  • There is implied obligation between employers and employees, such as the mutual duty of trust and confidence;
  • A number of core legal protections are only applicable to those classed as employees, such as unfair dismissal;
  • Only employees are covered by the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures;
  • The tax position of an individual depends on their employment status, as determined by HMRC.
  • Employers are vicariously liable for acts done by its employees in the course of their employment, and
  • There are different implications for handling personal data, under UK GDPR depending on an individuals employment status.

So how can you avoid these pitfalls?

5 Key Tests to Get Employment Status Right

If you organise one off, or short-term events,  you must remember employment status still applies and you cannot determine the nature of your relationship with the individuals you engage by simply putting a label on it. Proactive steps must be taken to assess the employment status of employees, workers, and self-employed contractors. To achieve this, it’s important to consider how the relationship operates on a day-to-day basis:

1. Control

The greater the company’s control over individuals, the more likely they are to be considered employees. Are you deciding when, where, and how they work? If so, they’re likely not self-employed.

2. Integration

The more integrated they are into the company, the more likely they are to be considered an employee. Are they part of your team, required to use your branding, attend meetings, and follow company policies and procedures?

3. Mutuality of Obligation

Are you obligated to provide work? Are they obligated to accept the work you offer? If so, this would indicate an employment status.

4. Personal Service

Is the individual required to perform the duties personally rather than having the right to send a substitute?  This is a characteristic typically associated with employment.

5. Financial Risk and Independence

The more financial risk an individual bears, the more it will indicate self-employed status. Are they using their own equipment, obtaining their own insurance, invoicing you, and handling their own tax?

To summarise, the more “yes” answers to the first four, and “no” to the last, the more likely you’re dealing with an employee or a worker and not a contractor.

So What Should You Do?

Assess the relationship honestly
Don’t rely on titles, look at how the role actually operates on a day to day basis. Use legal guidance or a checklist to help.

Put it in writing
Always issue the correct employment documentation which clearly reflects how the relationship operates in practice.

Provide a safe working environment
Think of rest breaks, access to toilets and water, and protection from excessive hours, these aren’t just “nice to haves”; they’re legal requirements. You have a duty to provide a safe working environment for all types of workers.

Budget for compliance
Proper contracts might cost more up front. But compare that to a tribunal claim, regulatory fine, HMRC fines and interest, and the reputational hit of being the next Glastonbury scandal.

The Encore: A Better Way to Power Events

In the post-pandemic world, festivals and live events face tighter margins than ever. But cutting corners on employment compliance is a false economy. The events industry depends on a passionate, skilled and often overworked workforce, treating them properly isn’t just the law, it’s good business.

If you’re a founder organising an event, outsourcing to an agency, or even hiring ad-hoc help for the summer season, take a moment to check your contracts. Because while you may not be the headline act, you’re responsible for the whole show.

Get in touch with Becci Collins if your employment contracts need reviewing.

Read the other articles in this edition here : The Fineprint – Edition 1 – July 2025 – Lawrence Stephens

 

 

 

 

 

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

AI in Law: Emma Cocker Shares Expert Insights in City AM Feature

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.