Search and find what you need faster.

Posts Tagged ‘HR’

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Workplaces are increasingly reporting a subculture of negative behaviours rooted in out-of-date, and often harmful, masculine values.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 challenging bad references from previous employers in The Telegraph

Posted on: July 5th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Emma Cocker, Senior Associate in the Employment team, comments on whether an employer can give a bad reference, and how employees can challenge a bad reference from a previous employer.

Emma’s comments were published in The Telegraph, 5 July 2024.

“An employer can give a negative reference, but it must be factual. Employers owe the subject of a reference a duty to take reasonable care to ensure the information it contains is true, accurate and fair. The reference must not give a misleading impression. If a referee gives a reference which is misleading, they may be liable for negligence, either to the new employer or the employee.

“In addition, if a referee knowingly includes false information with the intention that the recipient will rely on it, the referee will be liable to the recipient for a civil claim of deceit.

“It is difficult for employees to challenge a bad reference, unless they can demonstrate that the information was inaccurate, discriminatory or was given in retaliation for raising allegations of discrimination or whistleblowing. In practice, most employees will only become aware of a bad reference once a job offer has been withdrawn. At that stage, it is highly unlikely a prospective employer could be convinced to offer a role again, as the seeds of doubt will have already been sown.

“The only real option is for the employee to take legal advice to see whether they have a claim against the referee. If an employee does become aware of a bad reference before it has been shared with a prospective employer, they should try to discuss the reasons for the negative content with their new employer as soon as possible.

“Protecting your reputation is simple: be the best employee you can be. Courteous, on time for work and reliable – these are all behaviours employers hold in high regard. If there are circumstances which might affect your ability to comply with expected norms, such as being a parent or carer, or having a disability, discuss these with your employer as soon as possible so they are aware of any mitigating circumstances.

“There is a common misconception that employers are obliged to provide references. However, with the exception of regulated industries such as financial services, this is not the case. In reality, most employers will provide a “factual” reference, outlining the employee’s name, job titles and dates of employment, but they cannot be forced to provide further information.

“Employers are also entitled to include a disclaimer within the reference that limits any liability to the recipient of the reference. References may be given orally or in writing. However it is generally safer to provide basic factual references in writing with no further information given to avoid any liability to the employee or the recipient. If incorrect or misleading information is given, the recipient may allege negligence. Do not be tempted to say things on the phone that you wouldn’t commit to in writing!

“If you are not happy with a reference provided by your ex-employer, the first step is to find out whether the reference has actually been sent to the prospective employer. If not, you may be able to talk to your ex-employer and see whether they might be prepared to change the content. Remember however that they are under a duty to provide accurate information, so they may not be willing to change it. Also consider whether their approach or any of the information they have provided might be discriminatory, such as commenting negatively on high absence levels if you have taken a period of parental leave, or on your performance which has been adversely affected by a disability.

“If you have been given a bad reference because of or after raising concerns about discrimination, or after you have “blown the whistle”, you may have a claim against your ex-employer for victimisation or whistleblowing detriment. It is important to take legal advice at an early stage to assess whether you might have viable claims against the referee. This will be especially important if you have lost a job opportunity because of a negative reference.”  

If you have any questions relating to the above, please contact a member of our Employment team.