Welcome to our May 2025 Employment Law Update!
This month’s update examines several key developments with significant implications for employers. We unpack the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, which clarifies the definition of ‘sex’ under the Equality Act 2010 and its impact on the provision of single-sex facilities in the workplace. We also highlight the Government’s call for evidence on proposed equal pay reforms, expanding obligations around right to work checks, and the risks of non-compliance. Finally, we review a tribunal decision where poor communication around role changes led to a successful constructive dismissal claim - offering a timely reminder of the importance of transparency and sensitivity in organisational changes.
Provision of single sex facilities following Supreme Court ruling
In its recent judgment on For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, the Supreme Court ruled that references to ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010 referred to biological sex. While the judgment did not change the current legislation as drafted, it provides an authoritative interpretation of this. Consequently, there has been considerable discussion – and concern - about the implications for employers. In light of the Court’s ruling, the EHRC has issued an interim update highlighting that workplaces are legally required to provide sufficient single-sex toilets and changing and washing facilities (where needed) and that, where single-sex facilities are provided, trans people should only be permitted to use those facilities that align with their biological sex. Trans people should not, however, be placed in a position where there are no suitable facilities available for them.
The guidance confirms that it is “not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on a single-sex basis or to have single-sex facilities such as toilets” clarifying that, “where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided.” Until the EHRC has updated its guidance (due by the end of June), please seek legal advice before either excluding – or including – trans people’s access to the available facilities to ensure that all employees remain comfortable within the workplace, and to mitigate the risk of a potential discrimination claim.
Call for evidence in shaping equality policy
The Government is calling for evidence on a number of proposals relating to equal pay being considered for inclusion in the draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill. Interested parties are invited to comment on measures designed to remove pay discrimination, improve pay transparency, improve enforcement of regulations and strengthen protections against combined discrimination, and remove loopholes that enable employers to avoid paying equal pay. The consultation closes on 10 June 2025 and you can access it here.
Right to work checks
All UK employers must carry out right to work checks before employing anyone under a contract of employment. The Government has now announced plans to broaden the requirement for businesses to conduct checks on any individual conducting duties on their behalf, regardless of their employment status. This will, therefore, include those in the gig economy and on zero hours’ contracts as well as the self-employed, in line with Home Office guidance. Failure to carry out the requisite checks may result in fines of up to £60,000 per illegal worker and, in the most serious cases, a criminal conviction. The Government announced its intention in April but has not confirmed the timeframe.
YEAR: Your Employment Annual Retainer
Don’t forget that you can reduce the time you spend dealing with HR matters, while ensuring you comply with an increasingly complex area of law, by joining our annual retainer, YEAR. Your annual membership fee covers a range of services from an initial review of your HR documents, email and telephone support, and discounted rates for onsite visits - click here for the complete list.
For more information, please contact one a member of the Employment Law team.
All your employment needs in one place
Updates to employment law have come thick and fast in the last few years, reflecting changing government priorities. In this brochure, we bring together all the information you need to help you manage your day-to-day HR challenges. From the reassurance of being a member of YEAR, to a comprehensive training programme to keep you abreast of employment legislation, our Employment Law team will help you navigate this evolving area of law, while providing tailored advice for specific business needs. You can find more information here.
Case update
Seating change perceived as demotion led to successful claim
Walker v Robsons
A recent claim for unfair constructive dismissal succeeded because the ET found the employer’s behaviour leading up to Mr Walker’s (the claimant) resignation was ‘in breach of the implied term of trust and confidence’ between him and his employer. Although the trigger for the claimant’s abrupt resignation appears minor – the allocation of a seat in a different part of the office that he perceived to be one usually occupied by a more junior member of staff – was part of a chain of events.
Mr Walker was the branch manager at the Ricksmansworth branch of Robsons Limited, an estate agent. His assistant manager was Mr Gooder. Mr Walker was transferred to the Chorleywood branch as manager following the appointment of a new manager for Rickmansworth, who did not remain long in post. Mr Walker was recalled to the Rickmansworth branch but was not made aware that Mr Gooder had been effectively promoted to manager and that the role of branch manager would be split between the two men. Having assumed he would be taking up his previous (and sole) role of branch manager, Mr Walker anticipated that he would be seated at the rear of the office, a desk traditionally reserved for the branch manager. This was not the case; Mr Gooder was occupying the desk on Mr Walker’s return, giving the latter the impression that he had been demoted to the position of assistant manager.
When Mr Walker raised his concerns that he had effectively been demoted, his line manager, Mr Young, believed he was making an unnecessary fuss (while referring to his age) and the situation escalated to the point where Mr Walker resigned on the spot. The period leading up to this situation was marked by evidence of poor communication relating to decision making, revised terms and conditions, a failure to provide a job description for Mr Walker’s new role at Rickmansworth, and a threat of disciplinary action if Mr Walker failed to accept the new terms.
The Tribunal found in favour of the claimant in all respects, save that of age discrimination, noting that the respondent had not been able to show that the dismissal was fair. It also found that there was no contributory fault on the part of the claimant. This case shows that if employers wish to change an employee’s role and responsibilities, they must do so fairly and with good reason, communicate (and document) the reasons clearly, and deal with any dissatisfaction quickly and sensitively.
The information provided in this article is provided for general information purposes only, and does not provide definitive advice. It does not amount to legal or other professional advice and so you should not rely on any information contained here as if it were such advice.
Wright Hassall does not accept any responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on any information published here. Definitive advice can only be given with full knowledge of all relevant facts. If you need such advice please contact a member of our professional staff.
The information published across our Knowledge Base is correct at the time of going to press.
