In the latest edition of our Need to Know employment law newsletter we take a look at the Government’s decision to make Ethnicity & Disability Pay Gap Reporting mandatory for large employers, when a fair dismissal can become unfair due to a bad appeal, the latest compliance duties on sponsorship and immigration for companies with sponsor licences, and consider who is eligible for whistleblower protection.
- Govt to make Ethnicity & Disability Pay Gap Reporting mandatory for large employers
- When a bad appeal renders an otherwise fair dismissal unfair…
- Compliance Spotlight: Sponsorship & Immigration Compliance Duties
- Who gets whistleblower protection?
We have also included our usual HR Bullets, which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the Claimant’s appeal against a 35% reduction to her discrimination compensation. Although the tribunal found direct sex discrimination, harassment and sexual harassment, the EAT held the tribunal had wrongly reduced the Claimant’s compensation to reflect that chance that she would have left her employment without analysing whether the Claimant’s wish to leave was influenced by the harassment i.e. what would have had happened had the discrimination not occurred.
KJ v British Council [2026] EAT 46
- A part‑time nurse with caring responsibilities was dismissed by an NHS Trust after refusing weekend work. The tribunal found the NHS’s policy was proportionate and justified by operational needs to deliver 24/7 care, balance workloads and reduce costs. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the tribunal’s decision that the requirement for community nurses to work flexibly, including weekends, was a justified provision criterion or practice and did not amount to indirect sex discrimination and confirmed both group and individual disadvantage may be considered. It was satisfied with the Tribunal’s finding that the disadvantage to female nurses as a whole (the group disadvantage) was at the “lower end” of the scale since no other nurses had to had leave because of the policy and the disadvantage did not therefore outweigh the employer’s needs.
Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHG Foundation Trust [2026] EAT 32
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a conditional job offer may form a binding contract requiring reasonable notice before withdrawal. The claimant accepted a senior project manager role which was stated to be conditional on certain checks and satisfactory completion of a probation period, all grouped together, which were found to be conditions subsequent, not precedent. The employer withdrew the offer for unrelated reasons before the start date. The tribunal found no contract, but the EAT disagreed, holding a contract existed and that withdrawal without three months’ notice breached it.
Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems [2026] EAT 49
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld a tribunal’s decision to strike out discrimination claims because a fair trial was no longer possible. Delay caused by a company voluntary arrangement and the COVID‑19 pandemic meant most alleged perpetrators and key witnesses had left and were uncontactable or unwilling to assist, placing the respondent at an unfair disadvantage. The tribunal was entitled to conclude the claims could not be fairly tried and that no partial alternative was fair.
Boateng v Moss Bros Group Limited [2026] EAT 50
- The Court of Appeal refused to reopen a decision denying permission to appeal discrimination claims by an actor whose contract ended after social‑media backlash to posts expressing her religious views on homosexuality. The tribunal found her removal from a lesbian role was due not to her beliefs, but to the commercial and reputational impact of adverse publicity on the production and her agent. The EAT dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal confirmed alignment with Higgs and stressed CPR 52.30’s high threshold.
Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (ta Global Artists) [2026] EWCA Civ 253
- The Claimant, an accountant, was dismissed for poor performance after a subcontractor reviewed her work. She alleged the subcontractor was a disqualified director and not professionally qualified, and claimed whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld that her dismissal was due to poor performance, not whistleblowing, but allowed her appeal on detriment. The tribunal wrongly focused on her motive and whether wrongdoing occurred, rather than her reasonable belief in the disclosures being in the public interest.
Bibescu v Clare Jenner (t/a Jenners) [2026] EAT 30