Employment Law Alert UK – August 2026

DEI

Government publishes consultation on equal pay and pay discrimination.

On 14 July 2026 the government published a consultation, which marks a potentially significant reform of the UK’s equal pay and wider pay discrimination framework. This is a significant step, and it is perhaps no coincidence that it has been launched shortly after the implementation deadline for the EU Pay Transparency Directive.

The proposed strategy is divided into two key phases. In Phase 1, the government is seeking views on measures which it says are aimed at “fixing the [current] system”. Phase 2 is focused on broadening protections to close gaps in the law, focusing on pay discrimination on the basis of race and disability.

ET (Northern Ireland) dismisses gender-critical political opinion and constructive dismissal claims, focusing on “reason why” and belief manifestation.

The Northern Ireland Fair Employment Tribunal has dismissed claims of political opinion discrimination, harassment and constructive unfair dismissal. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as an Inclusion/Audience Development Coordinator. She holds “gender critical beliefs”, which were accepted by both parties to constitute a political opinion for the purposes of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. On 16 April 2023, the Claimant spoke at a ‘Let Women Speak” rally, without obtaining permission from the Respondent to do so. The Claimant received significant backlash online, which included comments querying the Respondent’s stance on the Claimant’s comments at the rally. A number of external organisations also raised concerns about the Claimant’s participation in the rally, given her role, which led the Respondent to launch an investigation. The Claimant commenced a period of sick leave in July 2023, following which she raised a grievance, initiated Tribunal proceedings, and ultimately resigned on 26 November 2024. The ET found that the Respondent’s actions (including internal/external emails, engagement with LGBTQ+ stakeholders, the investigation, sick- pay decisions and changes to access) were driven by reputational and operational concerns, not hostility to the opinion itself, and did not meet the threshold for harassment or a repudiatory breach of trust and confidence. The ET drew heavily on Page and Higgs to distinguish between treatment because of a belief and treatment because of the manner and operational consequences of its manifestation. It repeatedly found that the “reason why” was stakeholder management, reputational and operational concerns or contractual obligations, not hostility to the belief itself, and that none of the conduct reasonably had the purpose or effect required for harassment. The decision evidences a willingness to allow for external opinion to justify internal decision making. In doing so it raises the question as to whether this applies irrespective of the relevant protective characteristic in question and the merits or morality of the stakeholder view expressed. (Morrison v Belfast Film Festival Ltd)

EAT confirms disciplinary investigation into suspected abuse of guaranteed interview scheme constituted something arising from disability.

The EAT found that the ET erred in its analysis of the Claimant’s claims, and has remitted both claims for reconsideration. In May 2017, the Claimant, a civil servant, applied for a new post as an Immigration Liaison Officer. The Claimant asked for his application to be considered under the Respondent’s Guaranteed Interview Scheme (GIS), which provides that a disabled applicant is entitled to a guaranteed interview, provided that they meet the minimum criteria. The Claimant was not offered an interview, and instead a disciplinary investigation was launched for alleged misconduct in relation to his application. The Respondent ultimately accepted that the Claimant was, at the relevant time, a disabled person by virtue of his depression. The key question for the Tribunal was therefore one of causation; whether there was a causal link between the Claimant’s disability and the relevant “something” (i.e. ticking the GIS box). At first instance, the ET rejected the Claimant’s claims. However, the EAT held that, there was a clear causal link between the Claimant’s disability and ticking the box – it was not right to focus on the Respondent’s motivation for the unfavourable treatment. The EAT substituted a finding that the investigation was treatment arising from disability and remitted the question of justification. The EAT also found that using the GIS could be a protected act “in connection with” the Equality Act’s positive action provisions, so the victimisation claim must also be reconsidered. (Mr M Shah v Home Office)

EAT clarifies that retaining a warning could constitute “conduct extending over a period” in race discrimination claim.

The EAT has held that the ET erred in its approach to limitation in respect of the Claimant’s discrimination claim. The Claimant brought a claim of race discrimination in relation to a warning issued to the Claimant, following an “unpleasant” incident in the hospital car park about which there were significant disputes of fact. The Claimant was referred to the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal, who found serious misconduct, and issued a warning. This warning was published on the GMC’s website until January 2021. The Claimant issued judicial review proceedings to challenge the warning, alongside race discrimination proceedings in the ET. At first instance, the ET treated the act as occurring only on initial publication in January 2019 and as such held that the Claimant’s claims were out of time. The EAT held this was wrong, finding that retention of the warning on the website was capable of being ongoing conduct, only ending when it was removed. The case emphasises that the statutory language of section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 is key, and that the non-common use of alternative terminology (i.e. “continuing acts”) may in some cases be unhelpful. (Dr S Mokhammad v GMC & Ors)

EHRC publishes updated Code of Practice.

On 14 July 2026, the EHRC issued its updated Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations. The 40-day parliamentary scrutiny period ended on 9 July 2026, and the new Code will take effect on 5 August 2026. Given that there is no sign of a revised Code for Employers, the principles on single-sex provision for service providers could be seen as offering the best steer for employers at the current time. The Code makes clear that employers are required under the WHSW Regs 1992 to have single-sex (which in this context means biological sex) toilets or fully enclosed single-user toilet and sinks. Where reasonably possible – employers should provide single-sex and mixed-sex toilets, with trans people using the mixed-sex toilets. This might involve converting existing facilities, provided sufficient single-sex provision remains. Employers should continue to monitor the impact on trans, disabled and other affected groups.

Claimants suffered age-related harassment when they were told to “shut up”.

The ET has held that two sales executives recruited via LinkedIn for a six- week “final stage of interview” were in reality employees working full-time over approximately three months, personally providing services under close managerial control and therefore entitled to national minimum wage and statutory employment protections. Alongside the claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars, the Claimants brought claims for harassment related to age. The ET found that comments made by their manager, including saying that “someone of his age” would not know business law, and shouting “shut up, I am your superior” were unwanted conduct related to age with the purpose or effect of violating their dignity, amounting to age- related harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010 and justifying £3,000 injury- to- feelings awards for each Claimant plus interest. The ET reasoned that the comments were made when the Claimants were legitimately challenging their manager's authority and that he responded to that challenge by belittling the Claimants in an effort to humiliate them and stop any further challenge. (Mr R S Marugah & Miss S Qarouane v HAIX Ltd (in voluntary liquidation))

Employee relations

Right to be accompanied under ERA 1999 requires an actual request from the worker.

The EAT has dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against an ET’s refusal to allow him to amend his claim to add a breach of the statutory right to be accompanied under section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999 (ERA). The Claimant, a Head Sommelier/Manager employed for about a month at the Respondent’s restaurant, was called into an unannounced meeting at the end of a shift with the two owners, during which he was dismissed without prior explanation of the meeting’s purpose or potential outcome. He argued that this deprived him of any real opportunity to exercise his right to be accompanied and that employers should not be able to avoid the right being triggered by concealing the nature of a meeting. The EAT held that section 10(1) ERA imposes two clear gateway conditions: the worker must be required or invited to a disciplinary or grievance hearing, and must “reasonably request to be accompanied”; in the absence of any request, the right simply does not arise. The Tribunal was therefore correct to treat the proposed claim as bound to fail, since the Claimant had candidly accepted that he did not ask to be accompanied, and arguments based on Parliamentary intent, the ACAS Code, or Convention rights could not justify re writing the clear statutory requirement for a request. (Wolfe v Taka Mayfair Ltd)

EAT not obliged to consider Claimant’s Article 10 rights to freedom of expression in connection with unfair dismissal complaint.

The EAT has dismissed the appeal of a senior lecturer who had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct following student complaints about inappropriate and unprofessional language used in teaching sessions. The Claimant argued that the ET had erred by failing to interpret section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 in accordance with Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression/academic freedom), despite him not having pleaded or argued these points. The EAT held that ETs are not required “as a matter of course” to raise and analyse Convention rights in every unfair dismissal case involving speech, and that in this case the Article 10 issue did not “shout out” from the pleadings or the way the case was presented; the ET was entitled to treat the matter as a conventional misconduct dismissal. Applying the strict principles on new points on appeal, the EAT refused to allow the Article 10 argument to be advanced for the first time, noting it would have required different evidence and evaluative findings. The underlying findings that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, and that the procedure (including investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal) was fair, were not challenged. (Russell Cherrington v University of Derby)

Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures rewrite under consultation.

Acas has published a draft rewrite of its Code which would bring informal resolution into the statutory Code, with a potential impact on the 25% compensation uplift and introduces new content requirements for disciplinary and grievance letters, applies a stricter necessity test for suspensions, and replaces "employee" with the broader term "worker" throughout. The consultation will close on 23 September 2026.

Business protection

Court of Appeal finds training fee clawback scheme for junior IT employee to be an unlawful restraint of trade.

The Court of Appeal has considered whether a “training cost debt” of £8,108, which equated to approximately six months’ training and employment costs, and repayable over 18 months whether or not the employee remained in employment, was enforceable against a trainee QA engineer. The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent in March 2019, but left after eight months for a higher-paid role. The Court of Appeal held the clawback provisions were in restraint of trade and, although the Respondent had a legitimate interest in retaining trained staff, the scheme was unreasonable: it applied whatever the reason for leaving (save redundancy), wherever the employee went, and effectively turned a junior employee into an unpaid intern with a loan, undermining minimum-wage protections. (Geeks Limited v Joseph Henry Watts)

Parent company could not rely on restrictive covenants against worker on departure from subsidiary firm.

The High Court has held that a parent company could not enforce restrictive covenants against a self-employed independent financial adviser, when she left the subsidiary company for a competitor. The Defendant was initially employed by the subsidiary but in May 2019 it was agreed that she would leave her employment and become self-employed. At that point she entered into a self- employed contract, together with a Deed of Restrictive Covenant and a Variation Letter. In December 2019, the Defendant gave notice to terminate her contract and joined a competitor. A number of clients followed her. The Claimants brought claims alleging that the Defendant had acted in breach of her restrictive covenants and her obligations with respect to confidential information. The High Court held that only the subsidiary company, AFH Financial Services (the contracting party), could enforce the covenants; other group companies could not rely on the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, and no trust of the promise arose. It did though, find a 12- month non- solicitation clause (in the context of the annual cycle of client meetings and the cost to the Claimants of acquiring the client book) reasonable and enforceable, but a parallel 12- month non-dealing clause was an unreasonable restraint of trade and void (the “general client inertia” in the industry was taken account of here). (AFH Independent Financial Services Ltd & anor v Baker & anor)

ERA 2025

Government publishes updated ERA 2025 timeline.

On 16 July 2026, the government published an updated timeline for the next stages of implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025. From 1 October 2026, the time limit for bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal will be extended from three to six months. On 30 October 2026, a package of trade union measures will come into force, including a duty on employers to inform workers of their right to join a trade union, strengthened rights of access for trade unions, reforms to tackle unfair practices and improve access during the recognition and derecognition process (including freezing the bargaining unit when an application is received), new rights and protections for trade union representatives, and extended protections against detriment for taking industrial action. On the same date, new harassment measures will require employers to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment of employees, impose an obligation on employers not to permit harassment of employees by third parties, and introduce a ministerial power to make regulations specifying evidence- based steps employers must take to prevent sexual harassment, complementing the general duty to take all reasonable steps.