Creating a diverse and inclusive workforce remains a business imperative for global employers. Despite stakeholder and social pressure to accelerate progress, many companies have been unable to move the dial towards greater equality and diverse representation in the workplace. Join our panel of Inclusion & Diversity experts on May 11 as they discuss the findings of our recent Mind the Gap Survey and the steps diversity and HR leaders are taking to accelerate I&D progress and the challenges they are encountering.

The Court of Appeal has held that dismissing an employee for a social media post expressing gender critical beliefs and beliefs on same sex marriage was disproportionate, and therefore discriminatory. This decision confirms the legal tests for balancing conflicting protected beliefs, underscoring the basic principle that employees have the right to manifest their religious or philosophical beliefs, subject only to limited, objectively justifiable exceptions. While the post was arguably offensive to some gay and/or trans people, expressing a protected belief that is offensive to others does not by itself justify disciplinary action; there must be something objectively objectionable in the manner of expression. This is a high threshold; merely “intemperate” language is not sufficient.

Further to the Employment Rights Bill that was published on 10 October 2024, the government has launched a consultation on strengthening statutory sick pay. The consultation seeks views on the amount of statutory sick pay that employees earning less than the current eligibility threshold should receive as part of the amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

In brief The Employment Rights Bill (ERB) introduces a new requirement for employers to prevent third party harassment of employees in the course of their employment. Once in force, this requirement will apply to harassment because of any protected characteristic not just sexual harassment. It is an extensive obligation because…

The new duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of employees will come into force on 26 October 2024. Following a consultation during the summer, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has published an eight-step guide to preventing sexual harassment at work and made further updates to its technical guidance on sexual harassment and harassment at work

With effect from 1 January 2024, the government amended the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) to include associative indirect discrimination claims, with the stated aim of replicating and preserving existing EU case law. The EAT has confirmed that such claims were possible in relation to events occurring prior to 1 January too, under then-applicable principles of EU law. This means that where an employer applies a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) which puts people with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage, and where the claimant also suffers that same disadvantage, the claimant does not need to have the same protected characteristic as the disadvantaged group. (BA v Rollett and Ors, EAT).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that an employee was precluded from bringing disability discrimination claims against his employer as they had been validly waived under a prior settlement agreement. The decision confirms the Court of Session’s decision in Bathgate v. Technip Singapore PTE Ltd that unknown future claims can be validly waived under a settlement agreement although the drafting will need to be absolutely clear in this respect.

In an article published in Compliance & Risk Journal, John Bracken and Lorren Martin explore the issue of non-financial misconduct in UK financial services firms, and how best to manage the potential risks.

In today’s working world, transparency is not a box to tick but a new and very real workforce reality. Evolving reporting requirements, intensifying stakeholder pressure (both internally and externally) and increasing recognition of what it means to be a responsible business are shaping how organizations disclose information about – and subsequently respond to – their workforce priorities.

Defining, identifying and addressing inappropriate workplace behavior is increasingly a business-critical issue. Although local differences apply, many jurisdictions have similar legal requirements for protection of employees. This article explores the current legal framework, as well as the risks and litigation landscape, in the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates.