It is an indisputable fact that employers have a huge role to play in looking after the mental health and wellbeing of its workforce. To put it simply, a business’ products and services only reach customers and clients because their employees are fit and able to turn up to work each day.  

In championing their employees mental and physical fitness, employers are increasingly turning their attention to tackling obesity-related poor health.   

Obesity is a complex and often controversial public health issue and there remains a stigma towards people living with the condition. The causes of obesity are complex, multi-factorial and interrelated to a range of issues such as the individual’s biology, mental health and their social and economic environment. Employers should not, however, be afraid to tackle the issues and the dawn of the new weight loss drugs, which continue to be headline news thanks to their significant celebrity patronage, is providing the perfect opportunity to start the conversation. 

What are weight loss drugs? 

Weight-loss injections like Mounjaro and Wegovy have gained widespread attention over the past few years as an effective new treatment for weight loss for those living with excess weight. They were originally designed to treat type 2 diabetes by triggering the release of insulin into the bloodstream, thereby lowering blood sugar levels. The drugs also slow down digestion, decreasing appetite and making the person feel fuller after eating, thus supporting the person to eat less.  

According to a new study by University College London, an estimated 1.6 million adults in England, Wales and Scotland used Mounjaro and Wegovy to help lose with between 2024 and early 2025. 

What are the legal issues for employers to be aware of? 

As part of a wider strategy for helping employees to tackle obesity, the dawn of these new weight loss drugs should be welcomed by UK employers. However, the growing use of weight-loss injections among employees also introduces a range of workplace considerations. From needles on site and safe disposal to side-effect related absences, employers need to understand the operational, legal, and health challenges associated with these medications. 

Needles on Site 

Because weight-loss injections are self-administered via weekly injections, employees may bring injection pens into the workplace. This raises significant safety concerns. Improper storage or disposal of used pens can result in needle-stick injuries affecting colleagues, cleaning staff, or contractors.  

Without proper guidance, employees may feel compelled to inject in unsuitable areas such as toilets, cars, or personal workspaces, which creates hygiene and safety issues. Workplaces may need to provide private areas for injection and secure sharps disposal bins to mitigate these risks. 

The Risks of Administering Injections to Others 

Some employees may ask colleagues for assistance when self-administering injections. While often done with good intentions, this is risky. Untrained staff could make errors that result in serious complications, including infection. Employers could also face legal liability if something goes wrong. Clear policies are essential to make it explicit that only clinically trained personnel may assist with medication administration, and that all injections remain the personal responsibility of the employee. 

Side Effects and Sickness Absence 

Weight loss injections can cause side effects such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, fatigue, dizziness, and abdominal discomfort, particularly during dose escalation. These effects may lead to short-term or intermittent absences from work. Employers should manage these absences through their existing sickness absence policies, following standard procedures for reporting and recording time off. 

If an employee is taking weight loss injections due to a disability or long-term health condition, absence related to side effects should be handled in line with reasonable adjustment obligations. Occupational health support can help determine whether adjustments, monitoring, or temporary modifications to duties are appropriate.  

In all cases, managers should ensure that absences are recorded consistently and confidentially, and that decisions regarding fitness for work or accommodations follow established HR and legal guidelines rather than informal arrangements. 

Data Protection and GDPR Considerations 

Information about an employee’s use of weight loss injections is considered sensitive personal data under the UK GDPR because it relates to health. Employers must handle any disclosures carefully, ensuring that details about an employee’s medication or medical conditions are treated confidentially and only shared on a need-to-know basis. 

Employees should never be forced to disclose the medication they are taking unless it is directly relevant to fitness for work or safety, and even then, employers must ensure that the information is handled sensitively and in compliance with privacy regulations.  

Conclusion 

The dawn of the new weight loss drugs is to be welcomed by employers and championed as part of a wider strategy to combat obesity-related ill health at work. However, in doing so, employers must ensure that they introduce a range of operational, legal, and safety considerations into the workplace. From needle disposal and injection assistance to side-effect-related absences, employers need clear policies, training, and a supportive culture to manage these risks. By addressing these challenges proactively, workplaces can ensure employee safety, legal compliance, and a respectful environment for those using the medication. 

The Government has published draft regulations that could significantly change how workplace disputes are handled before reaching Employment Tribunals. The Regulations, set to take effect on 1 December 2025, propose to extend the ACAS early conciliation period from six to twelve weeks.

Under the current framework, employees and employers have a six-week period to engage with ACAS before a tribunal claim can proceed. The proposed change would double this window, giving parties more time to resolve disputes without formal legal proceedings. The extension will apply to all cases where early conciliation is initiated on or after 1 December 2025.

Implications for Employers

While the intention is to encourage dispute resolution, the longer conciliation period may present practical challenges for employers:

• Extended uncertainty: Employers may remain unaware of potential claims for longer periods, which could disrupt planning and decision-making.
• Administrative pressures: HR teams may need to maintain engagement and documentation over an extended timeframe.
• Risk of prolonged disputes: Doubling the conciliation period, could mean some cases remain unresolved for a significant amount of time.
• Financial and operational impact: Extended disputes may incur additional legal or advisory costs and affect internal operations.

For further assistance, employers can contact the Employment Team at Morgan LaRoche on [email protected].

As the Christmas party season approaches, many employers are busy planning celebrations, team gatherings, and end-of-year events. While these occasions are a great opportunity to build morale, they can also create situations where professional boundaries blur and where employers might find themselves liable for what happens outside of work.

A recent case, AB v Grafters Group, offers a timely reminder of how widely the phrase “in the course of employment” can be interpreted under the Equality Act 2010, and what this means for employers heading into the festive period.

Background

In November 2021, AB, who worked for a hospitality recruitment agency, believed she was scheduled to work. After arriving late and missing the scheduled staff transport, she accepted a lift from a male colleague.

During the journey, the colleague informed AB that her shift had been cancelled. When AB asked to be taken home, he instead drove her to a golf course, where he sexually harassed her.

AB brought a claim of sexual harassment to the Employment Tribunal against her employer.

Tribunal and Appeal Decisions

The Employment Tribunal found that while AB had been sexually harassed, the employer was not vicariously liable because the conduct did not occur “in the course of employment”.

As a result, the claim against the employer was dismissed.

However, on appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed with this approach. Referring to earlier cases, the EAT confirmed that conduct outside of the workplace can still be regarded as work-related if there is a sufficient connection between the act and the individual’s employment.

The EAT found that the original Tribunal had not properly considered key facts, including:

• The colleague had previously given AB work-related lifts;
• He sent her sexual messages while on shift shortly before the incident; and
• AB believed the lift was connected to her work assignment.

These factors could indicate that the harassment formed part of a course of conduct connected to employment or an extension of the workplace. The case was therefore sent back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The case highlights that the boundaries of employment are not confined to the office or regular working hours. For employers, especially during the festive period, the lessons are clear:

1. Misconduct can still be “work-related” outside of work.
If an employee uses their position, work relationship, or a work-related event to engage in inappropriate behaviour, the employer may still be held responsible.

2. Context matters.
Previous interactions, the nature of workplace relationships, and how events are organised can all affect whether behaviour is deemed to have occurred “in the course of employment.”

3. Be proactive with policies and communication.
Remind employees that the organisation’s dignity at work, anti-harassment, and social conduct policies apply at work-related events, including Christmas parties, travel, and after-work functions.

4. Train and brief managers.
Managers play a crucial role in setting the tone. Ahead of social events, remind them to lead by example and act promptly if issues arise.

5. Support and respond appropriately.
If a concern or complaint is raised following a social event, handle it sensitively, investigate promptly, and ensure support is in place for anyone affected.

For further assistance, employer can contact the Employment Team at Morgan LaRoche on [email protected].

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.