Welcome to our October 2025 Employment Law Update!
This month, we cover important new legislation and guidance, including the implementation of new rules on non-disclosure agreements, updated guidance on neonatal care pay and leave and steps employers can take to improve gender equality. We also take a look at rising sickness absence levels, and a case exploring how far an employer’s liability extends in cases of workplace sexual harassment.
We’re also delighted to welcome Celia Mokhtari, who joins our Employment Law team as an Employment Executive. Celia supports clients with Tribunal claims, settlement agreements, HR queries and contract drafting - helping ensure your employment documentation and processes stay compliant and effective.
Non-disclosure agreements: new rules now in place
Since 1 October 2025, any non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that seek to prevent signatories reporting criminal behaviour such as sexual assault or other forms of reportable inappropriate conduct, are now deemed void and not enforceable. Employers should review their NDAs to ensure that they do not contain any clauses that try to prevent employees from making permitted disclosures because they won’t be enforceable. This change will only affect NDAs signed on or after 1 October 2025. Agreements signed before that date will continue to be governed by the existing rules, including protections under whistleblowing legislation. If you would like any assistance with reviewing NDAs, please contact us and we can put you in touch with our Commercial team.
Statutory Neonatal Care Pay and Leave: government guidance
The Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 came into force on 6 April 2025. Under this legislation, parents (including adoptive and surrogate) of babies born on or after 6 April 2025 are entitled to up to 12-weeks neonatal care leave and pay (subject to eligibility criteria) if their baby either remains in, or is admitted to, hospital before reaching 28 days old and requires seven or more days of continuous neonatal care in hospital. The entitlement to leave is a day one right but employees will require 26 weeks continuous service with their employer to be entitled to pay. The Government has produced a guide to help employers assess eligibility, how notice periods work, what records need to be kept, and help with statutory pay. You can read the guidance here.
Improving gender equality in the workplace
The Women and Equalities Unit has produced a guide for employers on actions they can take to improve outcomes for gender equality. It focuses on four areas: hiring and selection; talent management, learning and development; inclusion and retention; and leadership and accountability. You can read the report here but, in the meantime, if you need any support in any of the areas covered, please get in touch.
Managing sickness absence
Sickness absence rates have risen to their highest ever levels at 9.4 days per employee per year according to the CIPD 2025 Health and Wellbeing at Work Report, with mental ill health now being the main cause of long-term absence. The report notes that although over 80% of employers offer some form of support for employees struggling with mental illness, it tends to be reactive, rather than proactive, thus missing valuable opportunities to help employees address issues before they become unmanageable. There are various sources of useful information about how to support mental health wellbeing in the workplace, including CIPD guidance but having the correct policies and training in place is a good starting point. Do get in touch with the team if you would like help with devising a bespoke training programme: prevention is always better than the cure.
Case update
Defining ‘in the course of employment’ for sexual harassment acts
AB v Grafters Group Ltd
Employers know that they have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect their staff from sexual harassment in the workplace, but establishing the extent of their liability is not necessarily as clear cut as a recent case brought by an employee against her employer demonstrates.
The Claimant brought a claim against Grafters, a business providing hospitality staff for events, for failing to protect her from sexual harassment perpetrated by another colleague. The Claimant had, unknown to the company, accepted a lift by a colleague (CD) to Hereford Racecourse, where she thought, incorrectly, she was booked to work, having missed the transport that Grafters had arranged to the venue. CD was not working at the time, having just finished a shift at Amazon. However, it transpired that he had been sending the Claimant inappropriate WhatsApp messages during his shift and prior to offering her a lift. During the course of the journey, she discovered that she was not required at the racecourse so asked CD to drop her off. He refused and subsequently sexually assaulted her which she later reported to the police.
The Employment Tribunal accepted that she had been sexually harassed but concerned itself with the question of whether or not the harassment had taken place while CD was ‘acting in the course of employment’ and thus whether his employer was liable for his actions. It concluded that he was not, adding ‘Whilst we accept the Claimant believed she was at work…her belief is irrelevant to the objective conclusion we have to reach as (to) whether CD was acting in the course of his employment (and not, whether he thought he was).’ The Claimant’s claim was dismissed. She appealed.
At appeal, the EAT ruled that the ET should have considered if CD’s offer of a lift was sufficiently connected with work ‘such as to render it in the course of employment.’ The ET was entitled to conclude that the Claimant’s belief that she was at work, and that CD was offering her lift as part of his work duties, was irrelevant to the question of whether CD was, in fact, at work. However, the ET should have considered whether CD took advantage of her belief that she was due to work at the racecourse, and offering her lift was an ‘extension of work and the workplace’, particularly given the earlier WhatsApp exchange and the fact that he had offered her a lift to a work assignment in the past. It added that the fact that the employer knew nothing of the arrangement was irrelevant. The EAT upheld the appeal and remitted the case back to the same Tribunal to reconsider the question by analysing CD’s conduct prior to the harassment.
This case is a good example of how far an employer’s liability for sexual harassment can stretch and underlines the need for clear policies and training.
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.
