Employment Law Alert UK – April 2026

Employment Rights Act 2025

Commencement regulations bring into effect key provisions of the ERA 2025.

As we approach another key ERA 2025 implementation date, this month we have seen the publication of key implementing legislation. The Employment Rights Act 2025 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/323) have been made. Notably, from 6 April 2026, these regulations effect the introduction of sexual harassment as a qualifying disclosure, double the potential protective award for failure to collectively consult, and introduce obligations on employers to keep records of workers’ annual leave. The Employment Rights Act 2025 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 commence sections 10 and 13 of the ERA 2025 (relating to sick pay and policies). Separate amendment regulations also remove the waiting period for statutory sick pay (SSP), making it payable from the first day of sickness absence and to remove the lower earnings limit for SSP eligibility from 6 April 2026. In addition, the Employment Rights Act 2025 (Enforcement) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/302) and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Application to Enforcement Officers) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/303) were made on 16 March 2026, and came into force on 7 April 2026. These regulations will enable the Fair Work Agency to carry out enforcement actions with effect from 7 April 2026. Alongside this, on 24 March 2026, nine members were appointed to the Fair Work Agency’s advisory board.

Increase in statutory compensation limits from 6 April 2026.

The Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2026 bring the increase in statutory compensation limits into force:

• maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal: increases from £118,223 to £123,543.
• limit on a week’s pay: increases from £719 to £751.

The changes take effect for dismissals on or after 6th April 2026.

Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave introduced from 6 April 2026.

The Bereaved Partner's Paternity Leave Regulations 2026, which take effect from 6 April 2026 in England, Scotland, and Wales, introduce a new entitlement for bereaved partners to take up to 52 weeks of leave if the child's primary carer (typically the mother or adoptive parent) dies within a year of the child's birth or adoption. The regulations outline eligibility criteria, notice procedures, and protections for employees on leave, including the right to return to work, redundancy safeguards, and protection from unfair treatment or dismissal. There is no statutory pay associated with this leave. The new right applies to bereavements occurring on or after 6 April 2026.

Government encourages voluntary action plans for 2026/7.

On 4 March 2026, the government launched a new initiative to encourage employers to put in place action plans to tackle the gender pay gap and improve menopause support in the workplace. Employers with 250 or more employees are encouraged to voluntarily publish the steps they are taking to address these issues, with the government providing guidance and working collaboratively with businesses to share best practice. These action plans, which, subject to secondary legislation may become mandatory from Spring 2027, aim to break down barriers to women’s progression, improve workplace cultures, and ensure fairer pay, while also supporting women through key life stages such as menopause. The new guidance includes evidence-informed lists of actions to support employers in formulating their plans.

Government plans to introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250 or more employees.

On 25 March 2026, the government published its response to the consultation (which ran from March to June 2025) on mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting. The consultation response emphasises the widespread support for the measure, which would aim to increase transparency and tackle barriers in the workplace. Draft legislation, developed with input from businesses already reporting voluntarily, sets out requirements for employers to publish pay gap data using a binary comparison for both ethnicity (white vs all other groups, and five broad ethnic groups where thresholds are met) and disability (disabled vs non-disabled), alongside workforce composition data. The reporting framework will largely mirror existing gender pay gap obligations, with similar snapshot and reporting dates, and enforcement by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Employers will also be required to publish equality action plans addressing race and disability workplace inequality. The government will provide detailed guidance and practical tools to support compliance, but no specific implementation date has yet been announced.

DEI

Court of Appeal refuses to allow permission to appeal in discrimination claim by actress dismissed after social media controversy.

The Court of Appeal did not find any inconsistency between the EAT’s decision in this case and the subsequent Court of Appeal decision in Higgs. It also stressed that there is a high threshold for reconsidering a decision to refuse permission to appeal (under CPR 52.30) and that the applications made by the Claimant in this case did not come close to meeting that threshold. The Claimant, a Christian actress, was cast in the lead role of Celie in "The Color Purple" but was dismissed after a 2014 Facebook post expressing her belief that homosexuality is sinful resurfaced, leading to public backlash. The Tribunal found that the reason for her dismissal was not her beliefs or their manifestation, but the commercial and reputational risks to the production and agency arising from the controversy, and that the agent and theatre were entitled to act to address the dysfunctional situation. Her claims of direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and breach of contract were not upheld. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the "reason why" test is a factual question for the Tribunal, and that the employer’s response to the fallout from the public reaction, rather than the protected belief itself, was the operative reason for the treatment. The Court also emphasised the high threshold for reconsideration and that in this case the EAT had carried out a detailed assessment of the ET’s assessment of the “reason why” and found that there was no error of law. Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd

ET dismisses discrimination claims over posts on Israel/Palestine conflict.

The ET has dismissed claims of direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief brought by two Muslim employees who were disciplined for posts on an internal work network about the Israel/Palestine conflict. The Claimants were given final written warnings, and after separate consideration by the Respondent’s Conduct Panel, the Respondent concluded that their actions had breached its Code of Conduct. The ET found that while both Claimants held protected beliefs (opposing oppression and racism were genuine and formed part of their Islamic religious beliefs), their posts were not manifestations of those beliefs for the purposes of the Equality Act. The ET further held that the Respondent’s actions were not because of their beliefs but due to the inappropriate manner and context of the posts. The judgment is lengthy and although a first instance decision, it considers a number of factual alternatives so may be a useful reference point for employers navigating the complexities in this area. Ms A Sohail and Ms A Khalid v Lloyds Bank Plc

ET finds failure to make reasonable adjustments in recruitment process.

The ET found that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the Claimant, who has a disability (anxiety), during a recruitment process, but dismissed her claims of direct discrimination and discrimination arising from disability. The Claimant applied for a position as a Pathology Operations Manager. The Claimant included conflicting entries in her application form about whether she wanted to disclose her disability and did not request any special arrangements. She was scored as the third highest candidate, although the difference in score between her and the second-ranked candidate was not significant. After the highest ranked candidate declined the offer, the position was offered to the second-ranked candidate, without reconsidering whether the Claimant’s anxiety had impacted her performance. Overall the ET found that the recruitment process was deeply flawed. At the point at which the highest candidate declined the offer, the Respondent knew of the Claimant’s disability and the disadvantage she faced in interviews due to anxiety, and failed to reconsider her application or adjust the process. The ET held that the Respondent should have reviewed whether her disability affected her interview performance and whether scores should have been adjusted, and that this failure amounted to a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Compensation for injury to feelings and preparation time was awarded, but the claims of direct discrimination and discrimination arising from disability were dismissed as the original decision was not tainted by knowledge of the Claimant’s disability. Ms A Rezaei v Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust

EAT overturns deduction from discrimination compensation.

The EAT has allowed the Claimant’s appeal against a 35% deduction from her discrimination compensation, finding that the ET had failed to consider what would have happened had none of the discriminatory wrongs occurred. The Claimant was employed by the British Council in Morocco. She resigned after being subjected to harassment and sexual harassment by a colleague and brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The ET upheld the Claimant’s key claims, finding multiple repudiatory breaches of contract, as well as discriminatory and harassing conduct. However, the ET applied a 35% Polkey reduction to the unfair dismissal compensation and a 25% Chagger reduction to the discrimination compensation based on the possibility the Claimant might have left due to restructuring or other reasons. (under the Chagger principle, the tribunal is required to consider what the Claimant’s position would have been had none of the discriminatory wrongs occurred). The Claimant appealed the deductions and the Respondent cross-appealed arguing that the sexual harassment claim was out of time. The EAT allowed the Claimant’s appeal on the Chagger deduction holding that the ET had not properly analysed whether the Claimant’s thoughts about leaving were affected by the harassment. It also found that the sexual harassment formed part of a continuing discriminatory state of affairs, culminating in the grievance report, so the claim was in time. The case was remitted for reconsideration of the compensation deduction. KJ v British Council

Employee relations

EAT upholds requirement for nurse with caring responsibilities to work flexibly at weekends.

The EAT upheld the ET’s decision that the Respondent’s requirement for community nurses to work flexibly, including weekends, was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of providing 24/7 patient care (whilst balancing workload and avoiding having to use more expensive senior nurses at the weekend) and did not amount to indirect sex discrimination. The Claimant, a part-time nurse with significant caring responsibilities, was dismissed after refusing to work flexibly under a new policy. The ET found that while the policy placed women at a group disadvantage due to the "childcare disparity," the Respondent’s need to provide 24/7 care and balance workloads justified the requirement. The ET considered the impact on both the Claimant and the wider group, noting that no other nurse was unable to comply with the requirement to the point of dismissal, and that the Trust had made efforts to accommodate the Claimant. The EAT confirmed that the ET had been required to consider both individual and group disadvantage but that in this instance it was not an error of law for the ET to have carried out more analysis on the impact on the Claimant. The policy was justified in the circumstances. Mrs Gemma Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust

Litigation procedure

Vento band increases.

On 30 March 2026, the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals in England and Wales and in Scotland issued the Ninth Addendum to the Presidential Guidance on employment tribunal awards for injury to feelings. The Addendum introduces updated Vento bands, for claims presented on or after 6 April 2026. The new bands are: £1,300 to £12,600 for less serious cases, £12,600 to £37,700 for middle band cases, and £37,700 to £62,900 for the most serious cases, with awards above £62,900 reserved for the most exceptional cases.

Whistleblowing

EAT remits whistleblowing detriment claim for reconsideration.

The EAT has upheld the ET’s finding that the principal reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was her performance, not whistleblowing, but found errors of law in the ET’s approach to her detriment claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act. The Claimant, an accountant, was dismissed following a period of concerns over the quality of her work. During this period, the Claimant raised concerns about a colleague’s qualifications and status (specifically that he was disqualified from holding office as a director and not a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants). Following her dismissal the Claimant claimed automatically unfair dismissal and detriment for making protected disclosures. The ET found she had not made disclosures in the public interest and had not proved the statutory factors, and that her dismissal was for performance reasons. The EAT held that the ET had made a finding of fact when it identified the “principal” reason for the Claimant’s dismissal and that that reason was rational and plainly open to it on the evidence. However, in relation to the detriment claim, the ET had failed to make necessary findings about the Claimant’s state of mind and reasonable belief, and had substituted its own view. The detriment claim was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for proper determination. Miss Elena Bibescu v Clare Jenner Ltd t/a Jenner’s

Charity trustees not entitled to whistleblowing protection.

The ET has held that charity trustees are not in an analogous position to employees or workers for the purposes of whistleblowing protection under the Employment Rights Act, and that their exclusion from such protection is justified. The Claimant, a charity trustee and former president of the British Psychological Society, argued that denying trustees whistleblowing protection was discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR. The ET, taking account of the earlier EAT judgment in the same case, found that while being a charity trustee is an "other status" for Article 14, trustees are not in a subordinate, paid, or employment relationship; rather they have a role of governance and oversight, and have alternative routes for raising concerns (e.g., the Charity Commission). The Tribunal concluded that the difference in treatment is justified to avoid conflicts of interest and protect charity resources. The claim was dismissed. Dr N MacLennan v The British Psychological Society v Secretary of State for Business and Trade, The Charity Commission