The Court of Appeal has held that dismissing an employee for a social media post expressing gender critical beliefs and beliefs on same sex marriage was disproportionate, and therefore discriminatory. This decision confirms the legal tests for balancing conflicting protected beliefs, underscoring the basic principle that employees have the right to manifest their religious or philosophical beliefs, subject only to limited, objectively justifiable exceptions. While the post was arguably offensive to some gay and/or trans people, expressing a protected belief that is offensive to others does not by itself justify disciplinary action; there must be something objectively objectionable in the manner of expression. This is a high threshold; merely “intemperate” language is not sufficient.

In brief The Employment Rights Bill (ERB) introduces a new requirement for employers to prevent third party harassment of employees in the course of their employment. Once in force, this requirement will apply to harassment because of any protected characteristic not just sexual harassment. It is an extensive obligation because…

The new duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of employees will come into force on 26 October 2024. Following a consultation during the summer, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has published an eight-step guide to preventing sexual harassment at work and made further updates to its technical guidance on sexual harassment and harassment at work

In its “Make Work Pay” manifesto, the Labour government pledged to bring in the “right to switch off” for workers. The government is reportedly considering a Code of Practice on such right, which may operate in a similar way to the Codes of Practice on disciplinary and grievance matters, and fire and rehire, with the potential for uplifts in compensation for specified types of claims where there has been non-compliance. Full details of the proposals are awaited but employers may wish to examine their hybrid and remote working arrangements now in order to ensure that they can react swiftly to future developments.

The recruitment process stands as a critical juncture in shaping the workforce of any organization. As organizations scale, the influx of job applications creates a complex balancing act. In an article, Morven Ross explores the risks to organizations of disability discrimination in the recruitment process and the correct management of AI in this context.

On 16 May 2024, the government launched a consultation concerning TUPE and European Works Councils (EWCs). There are three proposals under consultation: (1) Overturn the concept of split assignment in a TUPE transfer (where an employee’s contract of employment could be split between two transferees). (2) Confirm that TUPE only covers employees, not workers. (3) Repeal the remaining post-Brexit EWC legislation, which will likely see the end of any statutory obligations to maintain an EWC in the UK.

The employment tribunal ruled that a Christian actor was not discriminated against because of religion or belief when she was dismissed from the role of a lesbian character and her agency terminated her contract following a social media storm after an old Facebook post was discovered saying that she believed homosexuality to be a sin.

A dismissal will be automatically unfair if the sole or principal reason for dismissal is that the employee took or sought to take parental leave. In Hilton Foods Solutions v. Wright, the EAT has decided that this protection does not require the employee to have made a formal request. Communications about taking parental leave might reach a stage that could be described as having sought to take the leave. This will be a question of fact for employment tribunals.

An employer did not breach its duty to make reasonable adjustments for an employee with a stammer when it held internal promotion interviews via video conference. The employee’s stammer made him curtail his answers in the interview, which negatively affected his assessment. However, he had not told his employer that his stammer might have this effect and, on the facts of this case, the employer was reasonable in not realizing it.

The EAT has confirmed that a decision to dismiss based on “tainted information” given by another individual to the decision-maker would not make the dismissal discriminatory unless the decision-maker themselves were motivated by the protected characteristic in question.