The UK government has launched a wide-ranging review of parental leave and pay rights, set to run for 18 months, with the aim of considering potential reforms to law and policy. As part of the review, a summary of existing evidence has been published, alongside a public call for evidence, which closed on 25 August 2025.

Scope of the Review

The review, led jointly by the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), will examine all forms of parental leave and pay, including:

• Maternity, paternity, adoption, shared parental, neonatal care, and parental bereavement leave and pay
• Unpaid parental leave
• Maternity allowance

Alongside the call for evidence, the government has published:

• The review’s terms of reference
• A summary of existing evidence based on survey data
• HMRC statistics on statutory payments from 2014 to 2024

The review notes ongoing improvements under the Employment Rights Bill, which will remove qualifying periods for paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, granting them “day one” rights.

Aims of the Review

The government has outlined four main aims:

1. Define objectives for an effective system of parental leave rights.
2. Expand the evidence base on the current system, assessing what works well for families and employers, including international comparisons.
3. Consider options and principles for a system that meets government objectives, ideally with low cost to business and the exchequer.
4. Develop a roadmap for improvements, including changes deliverable within fiscal constraints.

Key Objectives of Parental Leave and Pay

The review identifies several objectives for a parental leave system:

• Supporting maternal health and recovery post-birth
• Encouraging parents to remain in work, reducing the gender pay gap and the “motherhood penalty”
• Providing sufficient time and resources for parental wellbeing and children’s development
• Supporting flexible childcare and co-parenting choices

The government will also consider fairness, equality, cost, and social factors such as child poverty and changing social attitudes.

Existing Evidence

The government’s summary highlights several points about uptake and pay:

• Mothers: 83% took maternity leave, averaging 44 weeks; 70% received statutory maternity pay.
• Fathers: 59% took paternity leave, averaging 1.7 weeks; 58% received full pay.
• Shared Parental Leave (SPL): 1% of mothers and 4% of fathers.

Financial constraints were a significant barrier:

• 35% of fathers and 11% of mothers cited affordability issues as reasons for not taking leave.
• About 40% of parents reported financial reasons for not taking longer leave.

Data also showed higher uptake among older, better-educated, higher-income parents, and lower awareness among ethnic minorities, those with fewer qualifications, and employees in smaller workplaces.

Context

The review follows the Women and Equality Committee (WEC) report published in June 2025, which criticised the complexity and inadequacy of current parental leave provisions, particularly for fathers. The report highlighted that low statutory pay and complicated rules discourage take-up, entrench gender stereotypes, and contribute to the gender pay gap.

Earlier consultations, such as the 2019 Good Work Plan, considered more radical reforms, including shared family leave with equal entitlements for both parents, following models like Iceland. However, such proposals were not implemented under the previous government.

Whether the current government will pursue a fundamental overhaul, or incremental improvements remains to be seen. The review is expected to conclude at the end of 2026, providing a roadmap for potential legislative and policy changes.

In a notable decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has granted permanent anonymity to a claimant in employment tribunal proceedings, even though the sexual offence allegation underlying the order was not part of the tribunal case itself. The case, AYZ v BZA [2025] EAT 91, demonstrates how the courts balance the principle of open justice with statutory protections for complainants of sexual offences.

Background

The claimant had reported an alleged sexual assault by the respondent dating back to 2020, filing a police report in 2023. While this allegation was entirely separate from her employment tribunal claims, she sought permanent anonymity to comply with section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (SOAA), which provides lifelong anonymity to complainants of sexual offences.

An employment judge initially rejected the application, reasoning that granting anonymity would undermine the principle of open justice.

EAT Decision

Cavanagh J, sitting in the EAT, overturned the employment judge’s decision, finding that the police report amounted to an “allegation” of a sexual offence under section 1(1) of the SOAA, even though the respondent had not been charged. The judge confirmed that tribunal judgments are subject to the anonymity provisions of the SOAA, as they are considered documents created for use in legal proceedings. He further held that granting anonymity in both the tribunal and EAT proceedings was essential to prevent the risk of jigsaw identification, where details from separate judgments could be combined to reveal the claimant’s identity.

Measures to Protect Anonymity

The EAT implemented several steps to safeguard the claimant’s identity:

• Issuing two separate judgments with no apparent connection;
• Using random initials for the parties;
• Omitting case numbers, hearing dates, and the names of counsel; and
• Not identifying the employment judge or EAT judge who had made interim anonymity orders.

The tribunal emphasised that this decision did not imply any error on the part of the employment judge in declining anonymity based on the material available at the time.

Key Takeaways

While the respondent argued that anonymity was unnecessary for an allegation unrelated to the tribunal proceedings, the EAT concluded that there was no other way to ensure compliance with SOAA. This case highlights:

• The legal obligation to protect complainants of sexual offences, even in unrelated proceedings;
• How the courts can reconcile the principle of open justice with statutory anonymity protections; and
• The careful measures tribunals and the EAT can take to prevent indirect identification of claimants.

The government has announced the launch of WorkWell, a new pilot programme designed to help people with health conditions or disabilities return to work while reducing the administrative burden on doctors. Jointly introduced by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the pilot began on 11 July 2025 and will operate across 15 regions.

A Different Approach to Fit Notes

The WorkWell pilot seeks to move away from the current practice of issuing “not fit for work” fit notes without offering alternative support. Instead, individuals receiving a fit note will be connected to local support services that provide tailored work and health advice.

This shift aims to:

• Help people with health conditions stay in or return to work while managing their health.
• Offer practical, constructive options rather than an immediate withdrawal from work.
• Reduce pressure on GPs by diversifying the professionals who can issue fit notes, including upskilled occupational therapists and physiotherapists.

Range of Support on Offer

Under the scheme, participants may receive:

• Career coaching to identify suitable work opportunities.
• Gym memberships to support physical health.
• Other personalised interventions tailored to both employment and health needs.

The government estimates that by spring 2026, the pilot will help 56,000 disabled individuals and people with health conditions return to work.

Policy Continuity

The origins of WorkWell lie in an announcement made in May 2024 by the previous Conservative government, which had planned pilots in the same 15 locations from October 2024. The current initiative appears to be a continuation of that plan, albeit under the new government’s stewardship.

Looking Ahead

Evidence gathered from the WorkWell pilots will inform the government’s broader strategy on work, health, and skills. If successful, the programme could shape future policy and provide a model for integrating health and employment support at a local level.

Further details can be found here: Boost for GP practices to help people back to work – GOV.UK

The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee recently launched a fresh inquiry into how best to improve the employment prospects of disabled people. The Committee sought input from disabled individuals, employers, and sector experts, with a particular focus on tackling the long-standing disability employment gap. The call for evidence closed on 29 September 2025.

Aims of the Inquiry

The inquiry  is exploring:

• The root causes of the disability employment gap.
• How effectively current government programmes support disabled people into work.
• What further measures could help close the gap and improve job opportunities.

The Committee has encouraged contributions from a wide range of perspectives, including those with lived experience, to ensure its recommendations are grounded in practical realities.

The Disability Employment Gap – Key Statistics

Figures cited by the Committee show the scale of the challenge:

• Around one in four of the UK’s working-age population are reported as disabled, including 5.52 million in employment.
• Disabled people are twice as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled people, with unemployment rates of 6.9% compared to 3.6%.

These disparities highlight the need for targeted interventions that address both structural barriers and workplace practices.

Previous Inquiries

This is not the first time the Committee has examined the issue.

In 2020, it carried out a similar inquiry, to which the government responded in November 2021. The Committee Chair at the time described the response as “unambitious”.

In February 2024, the Committee launched another inquiry into disabled people’s employment, but this was cut short when Parliament was dissolved ahead of the 2024 General Election.

Why This Matters

With such a significant proportion of the working-age population affected, closing the disability employment gap is not just a question of fairness it is also an economic imperative. Increased participation by disabled people in the workforce has the potential to benefit employers, the wider economy, and society.

The EAT has upheld an employment tribunal’s refusal to allow a claimant, acting in person, to amend her claim to add disability discrimination complaints four months after becoming aware of the potential claims.

Background

Under Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] IRLR 661, tribunals must balance all relevant circumstances when deciding whether to permit amendments to ET1s, considering:

• the nature of the amendment;
• limitation issues; and
• the timing and manner of the application.

Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (SI 2024/1155) requires cases to be dealt with fairly and justly, which includes avoiding delay and ensuring proportionality.

Facts

CX, dismissed as a prison officer in December 2021, initially brought claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, religion or belief discrimination, and later whistleblowing. In February 2024, after reviewing disclosure, she sought to add disability discrimination claims (depression and anxiety). The application was made in April 2024.

Decision

The tribunal refused the amendment, finding the claims were new rather than a relabelling, would require significant further investigation, and that the four-month delay lacked good reason. The prejudice to the respondent (additional disclosure, witnesses, costs, and hearing time) outweighed the prejudice to CX, particularly as her existing claims could lead to similar compensation.

On appeal, the EAT confirmed the tribunal had correctly applied the Selkent factors. There was no error of law, perversity, or failure to consider relevant matters.

Key point

Delay in seeking amendments, even for litigants in person, can be decisive. Where new claims introduce additional factual and legal issues, tribunals will weigh heavily the disruption, cost, and fairness to the respondent.

In Leicester City Council v Parmar [2025] EWCA Civ 952, the Court of Appeal has upheld a tribunal’s decision that the Council directly discriminated against a senior employee on the grounds of race.

Case Background

Mrs Parmar, a British national of Indian heritage with more than three decades of social work experience, held the position of head of service at Leicester City Council. In early 2021, she was temporarily removed from her role and placed under a disciplinary investigation based on vague allegations. She was not given clear details of the supposed misconduct.

She alleged that two white colleagues in equivalent senior roles, who faced similar circumstances, were treated more favourably with matters resolved informally through mediation rather than through formal disciplinary procedures. A subject access request also revealed that since 2017, only BAME senior managers, including herself, had been subjected to disciplinary action, while no white senior managers had been treated in the same way.

The tribunal found that race was a factor in the decision to investigate her. It also criticised the Council’s failure to disclose key evidence, including interview notes and recordings, which justified drawing adverse inferences. This shifted the burden to the Council to provide a non-discriminatory explanation, which it was unable to do.

Appeal

The Council’s initial appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was unsuccessful. It then appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the tribunal had:

• Misapplied the comparator test,
• Drawn unjustified inferences from non-disclosure, and
• Wrongly rejected its explanations.

Finding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that:

• The tribunal had correctly identified appropriate comparators and was entitled to compare treatment without exhaustively listing every similarity and difference.
• The adverse inferences drawn from the Council’s non-disclosure were valid, but the burden of proof was not automatically reversed.
• The Council’s explanations lacked credibility and did not rebut the inference of discrimination.

The Court of Appeal emphasised that appellate courts should address legal errors rather than re-evaluating the facts and should interpret tribunal decisions as a whole, not by isolating particular sentences.

The case is a reminder for employers to maintain complete records during internal investigations and to be thoroughly prepared for tribunal scrutiny.

It has been reported that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has told the High Court it now expects to deliver its final Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations to the government by the end of August 2025, a delay from its earlier aim of the end of July.

The updated Services Code is being revised to reflect the Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. A public consultation on the changes ran from 20 May to 30 June 2025 and has apparently received over 50,000 responses.

Before the consultation, the EHRC issued an interim update in April 2025 on the practical implications of the For Women Scotland decision, later amending it in June. That interim guidance has been at the centre of several legal challenges, including those brought by the Good Law Project and Liberty.

On 30 July 2025, during a preliminary hearing in the Good Law Project’s judicial review case, the EHRC reportedly confirmed its revised timeline for handing the Services Code to government.

No timetable has yet been given for updates to the Employment Code of Practice, though the EHRC has previously stated that work will start after the Services Code is finalised.

The Welsh Government has released updated guidance on agricultural wages, following the introduction of the Agricultural Wages (Wales) Order 2025 (SI 2025/293 (W59)), which took effect on 1 April 2025.

Published on 30 July 2025, the revised guide explains the Agricultural Minimum Wage requirements and other key employment terms for agricultural workers in Wales. The guide can be accessed here: Agricultural Minimum Wage 2025 to 2026: executive summary

This update ensures that everyone working in the Welsh agricultural sector has clear, accessible information about pay and conditions for 2025-2026.

With the UK currently seeing the thermometer rise, this article looks at how employers can manage dealing with hot weather in the workplace.

By working in high temperatures, employers may notice staff have a lack of concentration, there is an increased risk of accident, reduced productivity and an increase in “sunbathing sickies”.

Although there is no maximum working temperature set by the Health and Safety Executive, to minimise the negative side effects employers can take a number of precautions.

 For employees working predominately indoors, employers could consider the following:

• Access to cool water.
• Adequate ventilation.
• An increased number of rest breaks.
• A relaxation of formal dress codes.
• Boost morale by providing low cost treats, such as ice creams.

For employees working outdoors, employers should also consider the direct exposure to sunlight. Precautions can be taken including:

• Modification of the working routine to avoid heavy physical work being undertaken during the most intense hours of sunlight.
• Allowing an increased number of breaks in the shade.
• Workers should be encouraged to prevent exposure to the sun by wearing long sleeves and trousers and/or loose clothing.
• Wearing hats with wide brims or flaps to protect exposure to the neck and ears.
• Encouraging workers to use suncream of a high factor.

Ultimately, by keeping staff cool, motivated and engaged, employers can capitalise on the feel good factor and reduce the impact on absence and productivity.

For further information please contact the Employment Team at Morgan LaRoche  on 01792 776776 or [email protected].

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s decision For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) interim guidance, employers and HR professionals must now navigate a more complex landscape when it comes to supporting trans employees and maintaining lawful workplace practices.

While the legal definition of “sex” has been clarified to mean biological sex for Equality Act purposes, it’s equally important to understand that trans employees remain protected under the characteristic of “gender reassignment”.

This blog explains what this means for your organisation—and how to balance legal compliance with inclusion and good employment practice.

The Legal Landscape: A Quick Overview

What did the For Women Scotland case decide?

The UK Supreme Court ruled that sex, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, refers to biological sex—not gender identity. This has significant implications where laws or policies rely on sex-based distinctions, such as single-sex services or roles.

What does the EHRC interim guidance say?

Following the decision, the EHRC issued interim guidance advising public bodies and service providers (including employers, in applicable contexts) to:

• Interpret the characteristic of “sex” as referring to biological sex.
• Continue to uphold protections for trans people under the “gender reassignment” characteristic.

In short: trans employees are still protected from discrimination, but employers must apply sex-based legal distinctions correctly when relevant.

What This Means for Employers and HR Professionals

1. Apply the Correct Legal Definitions

You must now clearly distinguish between:

• Sex – meaning biological sex (male/female).
• Gender Reassignment – a separate protected characteristic that covers people proposing to, undergoing, or who have undergone a process to reassign their gender.

This distinction is crucial in areas such as:

• Gender pay gap reporting
• Occupational requirements (e.g. single-sex roles where lawful)
• Single-sex facilities and services (e.g. toilets, changing rooms, accommodations)

Action: Review all relevant HR and operational policies to ensure the correct application of these terms, especially where “sex” is a determining factor under the law.

2. Support Trans Employees Under Existing Protections

Trans employees continue to have full legal protection against:

• Direct discrimination
• Indirect discrimination
• Harassment
• Victimisation

These protections apply regardless of whether a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) or has undergone medical transition.

Action: Ensure your internal policies, including your equality and anti-harassment policies, explicitly protect individuals with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

3. Audit Policies Involving Sex-Based Distinctions

Where your policies involve sex-based distinctions, such as in the allocation of facilities, dress codes, or job roles, you must ensure:

• They are based on biological sex, in line with the EHRC’s interpretation.
• There is a legitimate aim behind the policy (e.g. privacy, dignity, safety).
• The policy is a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

Example: If your organisation provides single-sex changing rooms based on biological sex, you should also consider offering gender-neutral alternatives to avoid disadvantaging trans or non-binary employees.

Action: Conduct Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) and document your decision-making.

4. Maintain Confidentiality and Respect in Practice

Even when applying lawful sex-based distinctions, it remains unlawful and unethical to:

• Disclose a trans employee’s history without consent
• Misgender employees
• Deny reasonable adjustments that could accommodate dignity and inclusion

Action: Train line managers and HR staff on how to handle sensitive information with confidentiality and respect, and ensure employees feel safe discussing their needs.

5. Avoid Blanket “Self-ID” Policies in Certain Contexts

Policies that allow people to access services or facilities solely based on self-declared gender identity may not be lawful if they override the rights of others based on biological sex (e.g., in single-sex services where exemptions apply).

Action: Reassess any “open access” policies and ensure they align with both the Equality Act’s provisions and the EHRC’s latest guidance.

6. Continue Fostering an Inclusive Workplace Culture

The legal position does not prevent you from promoting a respectful and inclusive culture. You can:

• Use inclusive language in communications
• Respect preferred names and pronouns
• Celebrate diversity and LGBTQ+ inclusion events
• Support trans employees through workplace transitions

These actions build trust, reduce risk, and improve retention, all while remaining compliant.

Action: Embed inclusion in your organisational culture, while making sure policies reflect the latest legal guidance.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Compliance Area	Employer Responsibility
Sex vs Gender Reassignment	Apply correct legal definitions in all policies and practices
Trans protections	Uphold protections under the Equality Act for those undergoing or proposing to undergo transition
Single-sex facilities and roles	Base decisions on biological sex, with clear legitimate aims and reasonable adjustments
Confidentiality and dignity	Maintain privacy, respectful communication, and trans-inclusive support
Legal defensibility	Conduct and document Equality Impact Assessments and seek legal advice where needed

In For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court ruled that the terms “woman,” “man,” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) are to be understood as referring to biological sex. As a result, the definition of “woman” under the Act does not include trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Despite this they continue to be protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment or based on their biological (or perceived biological) sex.

The issue initially emerged from a 2018 initiative by the Scottish Government aimed at increasing female representation on public boards. The accompanying statutory guidance stated that transgender women with a GRC were to be regarded as women for the purposes of the legislation and under the Equality Act. The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018originally defined “woman” to include trans individuals under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This definition was ruled beyond the Scottish Parliament’s competence in For Women Scotland Ltd v Lord Advocate [2022].Revised guidance aligned with the Equality Act’s definition, which includes trans women with a GRC.

After the Scottish Government issued revised statutory guidance under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, For Women Scotland initiated a further judicial review against the Scottish Ministers, arguing that the guidance failed to comply with the decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v Lord Advocate [2022] and was therefore unlawful. The Court of Session upheld the guidance. For Women Scotland appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal.

It held that Parliament intended the terms “man,” “woman,” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 to refer to biological sex. Consequently, trans women with a GRC are not included in the definition of “woman” under the Act.

The Court held that the terms “man,” “woman,” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, and that including acquired gender via a GRC would undermine the Act’s consistency, especially in areas like pregnancy, maternity, and sex-based protections.

It found that extending rights based on GRC status could unfairly divide the trans community and create practical issues for service providers, who cannot legally ask about GRCs. The Scottish Government’s broader interpretation was seen as a threat to existing protections, such as those in lesbian-only spaces.

The Court also clarified that trans individuals remain protected under the gender reassignment characteristic in the Equality Act, with further protection available through association, perception, and indirect discrimination claims under the Act.

In Madu v Loughborough College [2025] EAT 52, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether a £20,000 costs order against a race discrimination claimant was fair, especially where the claimant had spent part of the case without legal representation.

In 2018, Mr Madu, a Black British applicant, applied for a part-time lecturer role at Loughborough College. After his request to reschedule his interview was denied, while a white Irish candidate was granted one, he brought a race discrimination claim, later instructing solicitors. The successful applicant, a white British candidate, had scored higher in the interview.

Mr Madu argued he was treated less favourably in the scheduling, selection process, and handling of complaints, citing the College’s low ethnic diversity (2.9% non-white staff).

The tribunal dismissed the claim and awarded the College £20,000 in costs. It assumed Mr Madu’s solicitors had advised him his case lacked merit.

On appeal, Mr Madu argued the tribunal wrongly assumed the content of his legal advice and failed to account for the time he was self-represented and the complexities of discrimination cases.

The EAT upheld the appeal and sent the College’s costs application back to be reconsidered by a differently constituted tribunal.

The EAT criticised the tribunal for not fully appreciating the difficulties faced by unrepresented discrimination claimants in assessing whether their case has reasonable prospects. It also highlighted the inconsistency in holding Mr Madu to a high standard while excusing the College, who had legal representation, for not applying to strike out the claim earlier.

Ultimately, the EAT reiterated that although the legal test for awarding costs is uniform, discrimination claims require a careful and sensitive application of that test.

A survey by researchers from Cardiff University, UCL, Oxford’s Nuffield College, and the University of Surrey has shed light on the extent of workplace abuse and growing inequality in UK working conditions.

The Skills and Employment Survey found that one in seven UK workers has faced abuse such as bullying, violence, or sexual harassment. Areas where the risk is particularly high include nursing (32%) and teaching (28%), and among women and night shift workers.

The survey also explored the use of artificial intelligence at work. 24% of those surveyed say they use AI, however, its benefits are largely confined to high-skilled, high-paid roles, often held by younger, male, and degree-educated workers.

Despite an increasing demand for degree-level skills, the number of workers holding such qualifications has dipped slightly.

It is clear from the survey that attitudes toward trade unions are shifting, with over a third of workers in non-unionised workplaces expressing support for unionisation.

The researchers raised concerns about inequities in remote working, pointing out that not everyone has the financial means or living space to set up a proper home office. Over half of workers surveyed are using spaces intended for other purposes to carry out their work.  They argue that policy should encourage a broader range of flexible working options, not just working from home, to help level the playing field.

On 20 March 2025, Acas launched a new campaign aimed at enhancing understanding and support for neurodivergent employees. The initiative provides employers with practical resources and guidance to help build inclusive workplaces.

The campaign focuses on actionable steps employers can take to create more accessible work environments, including making recruitment a more inclusive exercise by accommodating different cognitive styles. Employers can also offer flexible working arrangements and assistive technologies for neurodivergent workers and promote awareness and understanding of neurodivergence among staff to reduce stigma.

In addition to this, the Department for Work and Pensions has established a new expert panel on neurodiversity and employment. Running until summer 2025, the panel will review employment outcomes for neurodivergent individuals and provide evidence-based recommendations to shape workplace policy and practices. It will examine all forms of neurodivergence and consider:

• Barriers to employment and career progression
• Effective employer strategies for fostering inclusion
• Government policies that could support systemic improvements
• Economic benefits of a neurodiverse workforce
• The impact of intersectional factors such as social deprivation, gender, and ethnicity

According to Acas, employers should prepare for increased accountability in aligning recruitment and workplace practices with neurodiversity principles.

The Presidents of the Employment Tribunals for England and Wales and for Scotland have updated the Vento bands, in line with changes to the Retail Prices Index (RPI).

The increased Vento bands are as follows:

• Lower band: £1,200 to £12,100 (previously up to £11,700), for less serious cases.
• Middle band: £12,100 to £36,400 (previously up to £35,200), for cases which do not merit an award in the upper band.
• Upper band: £36,400 to £60,700 (previously up to £58,700), for the most serious cases.
• Awards exceeding £60,700 can be awarded in the most exceptional cases.

The updated bands will apply to all employment tribunal claims submitted on or after 6 April 2025.

A Culture Amp survey has revealed that UK companies are continuing to protect diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) budgets, even as such initiatives face increasing resistance in the US. The survey, which gathered responses from over 1,000 UK organisations, found that 74% have a DEI programme in place. Of those, 26% have increased their DEI funding and 33% are maintaining current budget levels.

Similarly, a separate survey by Occupational Health Assessment Ltd, involving 140 UK employers, showed that 53% continue to support equality and diversity policies, with 22% looking to further strengthen their DEI efforts. However, 69% of respondents anticipated that the US rollback on DEI initiatives would have at least some impact on UK workplaces and related policies.

The survey also highlighted how UK employers are integrating DEI into their core operations. Four in ten companies have introduced DEI-related questions into their recruitment processes, and 36% have added diversity-focused items to their engagement surveys to better understand workforce demographics.

The Equality Act 2010, has established strong protections for minority groups in the UK. This would make it difficult for employers to fully adopt the newer, more restrictive approach to DEI being promoted in parts of the US, including by figures such as Donald Trump.

Mrs Higgs, a practising Christian, was employed by Farmor’s School as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager. In these roles, she interacted with secondary school pupils and their parents.

The school’s head teacher received a complaint from a parent regarding a Facebook post shared by Mrs Higgs. The post that was shared criticised the inclusion of same-sex relationships, same-sex marriage, and gender identity as a matter of personal choice in school curriculum. The parent expressed concern that the post reflected homophobic and prejudiced views towards the LGBT community.

Mrs Higgs was suspended and denied holding homophobic or transphobic beliefs. After an internal investigation and disciplinary hearing, she was dismissed for gross misconduct. The disciplinary panel concluded that her social media activity breached the school’s code of conduct. It determined that the offensive nature of the posts, particularly the “inflammatory and quite extreme” language, constituted discrimination in the form of harassment and posed a potential risk to the school’s reputation. Her appeal against the dismissal was unsuccessful.

Mrs Higgs brought claims before the employment tribunal alleging direct discrimination and harassment on the grounds of religion or belief. She argued that she had been mistreated due her beliefs which included the following amongst other beliefs:

• A lack of belief in gender fluidity;
• A belief that a person cannot change their biological sex or gender;
• A lack of belief in same-sex marriage, which she viewed as contrary to Biblical teachings.

The employment tribunal accepted that these beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). However, it concluded that Mrs Higgs had not been directly discriminated against or harassed because of those beliefs. Instead, it found that her disciplinary action and dismissal stemmed from the “florid and provocative language” used in her Facebook posts, which could reasonably be interpreted as expressing homophobic and transphobic views, views not protected under the EqA 2010.

The EAT allowed Mrs Higgs’ appeal, finding that the tribunal had failed to properly consider whether the school’s actions were taken because of her beliefs or because of how she manifested them. The EAT held that the tribunal should have assessed whether there was a sufficiently close connection between her protected beliefs and the content of her Facebook posts. As a result, the case was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.

The claim reached the Court of Appeal. It substituted a finding that Mrs Higgs’ dismissal amounted to unlawful direct discrimination based on religion or belief.

The Court held that dismissing an employee solely for expressing a religious or protected belief, where the employer, or a third party whose opinion the employer seeks to manage, finds that belief objectionable, constitutes unlawful direct discrimination. Where the dismissal is instead prompted by the manner in which the belief is expressed, it can only be lawful if the employer demonstrates that the response was proportionate and objectively justified.

While Mrs Higgs had shown little insight into the potential offensiveness of her posts or taken them down, the Court held this was not determinative. Employees may understandably resist admitting fault when expressing deeply held beliefs, unless the employer’s need for assurance is critical to preventing future harm, which was not the case here.

The Court clarified that employers cannot interfere with an employee’s rights to belief and expression simply because others find those beliefs offensive. However, employers may impose restrictions where the employment relationship justifies it. Even then, any restriction must be proportionate.

Three factors may guide the proportionality assessment:

1. Relevance to Employer’s Work: Beliefs expressed about topics unrelated to the employer are less likely to cause reputational harm.
2. Manner of Expression: While protected beliefs expressed offensively may harm reputation, the standard for offensiveness should be high.
3. Attribution to Employer: If it is clear the employee is speaking personally, the risk to the employer’s reputation is reduced.

In Mrs Higgs’ case, although there was a link between the posts and her job due to the topic of sex education, the posts were shared from her personal account under her maiden name, with no reference to the school. While reputational risk cannot be ruled out due to the public nature of social media, the potential harm was minimal and speculative.

The Home Office has transitioned from issuing physical biometric residence permits (BRPs) to digital immigration statuses (eVisas). The updated Employer’s Guide to Right to Work Checks confirms that, from 12 February 2025:

• Individuals granted entry clearance overseas for longer than six months will receive a 90-day vignette in their passport to facilitate travel to the UK. Upon arrival, they must create a UKVI account within 10 calendar days or before the vignette’s expiry (whichever is later) to access their eVisa. This replaces the previous requirement to collect a BRP and enables individuals to prove their right to work.
• Where employment commences prior to account creation, employers may perform a manual right to work check using the vignette. However, a follow-up online check via the UKVI online service must be conducted before the vignette expires to retain the statutory excuse against civil penalties.
• If an employee cannot access their eVisa before the vignette expires due to system errors or other issues, they should contact UKVI. Employers are not required to terminate employment in such cases, provided there is a genuine belief in the individual’s continued right to work. Instead, they should use the Employer Checking Service to seek a Positive Verification Notice to preserve their statutory defence.

The guidance also clarifies that a clipped British or Irish passport (i.e., one with cut or removed page corners) is considered cancelled and cannot be used to establish the right to work. Further that a short or long-form birth certificate is acceptable evidence when accompanied by official documentation linking the individual’s name to their National Insurance number, issued by a government body or previous employer.