Employment Law Alert UK – October 2025

Workers’ rights

ERB on the home straight. The Employment Rights Bill (ERB), introduced in October 2024, is now in its final parliamentary stages. On 15 September 2025, the House of Commons rejected most of the House of Lords’ amendments (introduced at the Report Stage), instead reaffirming the Government’s original proposals. Of particular note, the House of Commons rejected the suggestion that the day-one right to claim unfair dismissal should instead be subject to a six-month qualifying period and the proposed introduction of extended unfair dismissal protection for whistleblowers and an obligation on employers to investigate protected disclosures. The ERB will now return to the House of Lords and is expected to receive Royal Assent later this autumn. Interestingly at the end of the House of Commons Debate the Government indicated that it will be “moving as fast as possible” to introduce provisions on NDAs and consult on related secondary legislation, so we may see further changes in relation to NDAs before the year is out.

DBT publishes response on paternity and shared parental leave. On 19 September, the DBT published its response to the Women and Equalities Committee’s (WEC) report on the UK’s parental leave system. The WEC’s key recommendations include extending paid statutory paternity leave to six weeks, increasing statutory paternity pay to the same rate as statutory maternity pay, and taking measures to increase the take-up of paternity leave and shared parental leave. This report comes alongside the broader review of parental leave and pay which was commissioned on 1 July 2025. Unsurprisingly in this context, the DBT’s response does not contain many commitments, other than that the specific recommendations will be considered as part of the broader review. We are likely to hear the outcome of that review in 2027.

Scottish Government plans to introduce Scottish Human Rights Bill. On 28 August 2025, the Scottish Government announced proposals to introduce a Scottish Human Rights Bill (subject to the outcome of the 2026 Scottish Parliamentary election). The announcement comes in the form of a discussion paper and summary document, which outlines the commitment of ministers to protecting human rights in domestic law. The Human Rights Bill would aim to ensure that more human rights (which relate closely to day-to-day life) are properly incorporated into Scots law, such that public bodies are clearer on how to give effect to those rights. Interestingly it is also proposed that the Bill includes the right to a healthy environment to include a right to clean air, a safe climate, healthy ecosystems and biodiversity, and non-toxic environments in which to live, work and play.

Harassment

ET fails to properly assess whether harassment occurred “in the course of employment.” The EAT has overturned a decision by the ET that the Respondent was not liable for sexual harassment which occurred in a colleague’s car. The Claimant alleged that she was sexually harassed by a colleague, after he offered her a lift when she mistakenly believed she was due to work a shift. The ET found that while the Claimant had been sexually harassed, the Respondent was not liable as the harassment did not occur "in the course of employment." In reaching this conclusion, it relied on the fact that the Respondent did not require or expect informal lifts between colleagues and the lift which the Claimant was given was not arranged or sanctioned by the Respondent. On appeal, the EAT held that the ET had erred by failing to consider whether the circumstances constituted an "extension of work and the workplace," particularly given the close connection between the work context and the events. The EAT emphasised that whether conduct occurs "in the course of employment" is a fact-specific question, requiring consideration of all relevant circumstances, including any sufficient nexus or connection with work. In this case, if the Claimant’s colleague took advantage of the Claimant’s belief that he was offering her a lift as part of his work duties this could create a sufficient connection with work. The case was remitted to the same ET for reconsideration. The case serves as a reminder for employers that liability for harassment may arise even outside traditional working hours or locations if there is a sufficient connection to employment, and that tribunals must carefully analyse all relevant factors in such cases. Interestingly the EAT stated that it did not consider it possible or even desirable to lay down any hard and fast guidance. (AB v Grafters Group Ltd (t/a CSI Catering Services International))

Litigation procedure

Claimant’s claims of direct race and religion or belief discrimination and harassment were out of time. The EAT has upheld the decision of the ET that the Claimant’s claims of religion or belief discrimination, which related to events which took place up until October 2018 were out of time. The Claimant, who worked at a McDonald’s restaurant, alleged that he was subjected to discrimination and harassment by colleagues in 2018, and that his manager responded to his complaints by assigning less favourable duties. At a Preliminary Hearing the ET found that all relevant alleged acts occurred by October 2018, and that the Claimant’s claim, presented in October 2022, was almost four years out of time. The ET refused to extend time on the basis that the delay was long, the reasons for delay were unconvincing, and allowing the claim to proceed would prejudice the respondent due to faded memories and the unavailability of key witnesses. On appeal, the EAT upheld the ET’s decision, finding that the ET had correctly identified the scope of the live complaints as limited to events up to October 2018, properly applied the law on “conduct extending over a period,” and was entitled to find that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The EAT also rejected arguments that the hearing was unfair because the Claimant’s line manager was not called as a witness, noting that the Respondent was not obliged to call her and the ET did not rely on her statement. The case highlights the strict approach to time limits in discrimination claims and the importance of clearly identifying the scope of complaints and the relevant period for limitation purposes. (Mr N Ahmed v Capital Arches Group Ltd)

EAT refuses remote application for documents. The EAT has rejected an application by the Claimant, a self-described ‘student journalist’, as a non-party to proceedings, to access documents remotely. The Claimant issued an application to remotely observe a Rule 3(10) hearing and obtain access to various documents, including the ET1, ET3, Notice of Appeal, and skeleton arguments. The Claimant indicated a particular interest in decisions authored by Judge Tayler and stated that “the publication of analysis and commentary on judicial proceedings serves the vital public interest in transparency and accountability of the justice system.” While the EAT granted the Claimant permission to attend the hearing remotely, it refused her request for documents, citing insufficient justification for how the documents would advance the open justice principle. The EAT noted the Claimant’s history of frequent applications for remote observation and document access, which had consumed significant judicial and administrative resources. Additionally, concerns were raised about the potential misuse of sensitive materials, as the Claimant herself was not transparent in her responses to questions asked in connection with the proceedings (i.e. why the documents were being sought and what the Claimant had done with documents requested in connection with other cases). The EAT concluded that the Claimant’s request for documents was unnecessary to understand the limited scope of the Rule 3(10) hearing and emphasised the need to balance open justice with the protection of private and confidential information. (Ms Elaina Cohen v Mr Khalid Mahmood MP)

Remuneration

Proprietary estoppel comes to the rescue of Claimant for exercise of share options after termination of employment. The High Court has held that the Claimant was entitled to rely on assurances that he was given in relation to the exercise of his share options by the Respondent’s CEO at the time at which his exit from the company was agreed. The Claimant sought to exercise share options granted under the Respondent’s 2010 employee share option plan after his employment ended in 2014. When the Claimant sought to exercise these options in 2020 and 2022, he argued that assurances from the Respondent’s CEO allowed him to retain and exercise these options, despite the plan rules requiring options to lapse upon termination unless extended at the Respondent’s discretion. The High Court found no evidence that the Respondent formally exercised its discretion to extend the Claimant’s options under the plan rules. However, the Court held that the Claimant had relied to his detriment (staying on for an additional three months after he was required to and agreeing to additional post-termination restrictions) on the CEO’s assurances, which created a proprietary estoppel. The court deemed it unconscionable for the Respondent to deny the Claimant’s rights given the assurances, though the specific remedy for the estoppel claim was deferred for further determination. (Andrew Dixon v GlobalData Plc)