In the most recent edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we look at recent clarifications on whistleblowing and worker status, how employers should respond to the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex in the Equality Act, and the new guidance on neonatal care leave and pay.
- Whistleblowing and worker status – Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council
- Supreme Court Ruling on definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010
- ACAS publishes new guidance on neonatal care leave and pay
We also have included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The EAT upheld a tribunal’s decision that an employer was not liable for a racist comment by one of its employees because the comment was not in the course of employment and the employer had taken all reasonable steps to prevent it. The reasonable steps included induction sessions emphasising core values, annual performance assessments against the core values and mandatory equality and diversity training; Campbell v Sheffield Teaching North Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EAT 42
- The EAT held that an ET had erred by refusing to grant the Claimant anonymity in his disability discrimination claims where he did not wish his disability to be made public- the Claimant only needed to prove that he had a reasonable foundation for his beliefs; F v J [2025] EAT 34
- The Court of Appeal upheld the EAT’s ruling that Ofsted’s dismissal of a school inspector for brushing rainwater off a child’s head was both substantively and procedurally unfair. It clarified that an employer cannot treat misconduct more severely due to an employee’s lack of contrition or insight; Ofsted v Hewston [2025] EWCA Civ 250
- The Upper Tribunal held that the lack of an obligation on the employer to provide work did not mean there could be no mutuality of obligation. Consequently, the claimant was held to be an employee for tax purposes; George Mantides Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2025] UKUT 124(TCC)
- The EAT held that an ET had erred in refusing a litigant in person permission to amend his claim to include a claim for automatic unfair dismissal. All that was needed was a “re-labelling” of the claim to add legal labels to facts already there. The tribunal should have helped clarify the issues earlier rather than asking the claimant to amend his claim. Fong v Montgomery (t/a Raemoir Trout Fishery) [2025] EAT 31