Whether or not an employee meets the legal definition of a disabled person is a crucial starting point in any disability discrimination case. Under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial, long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities.
It’s a basic requirement when claiming employment rights that the claimant is, in fact, an employee of the respondent. But sometimes, especially in the context of care, the lines can be blurred. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Scully v Northamptonshire County Council clarifies the distinction between care funding arrangements and employment relationships.
For HR teams in international businesses, one tricky question is whether UK employment tribunals can hear claims against colleagues who live and work overseas. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision offers some helpful clarity.
A claim of ‘one rule for them; one rule for everyone else’ was recently heard in the Birmingham Employment Tribunal. In Burns v Gitpod, the Claimant was sacked after getting drunk and allegedly falling asleep in a sauna on a work trip.
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns due to intolerable working conditions created by their employer or fundamental changes to their contract, meaning that their employment has become untenable.
The Government has published its response to its recent consultation on modernising industrial relations. As a result, it plans to make several changes to the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) relating to trade unions.
The Government’s flagship Employment Rights Bill has, quite rightly, been the focus of employment law commentators since it was first announced last July. However, it wasn’t the only proposed employment legislation referenced in the King’s Speech. The Government also used the King’s Speech to announce its intention to bring forward the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, introducing a requirement for large employers (those with 250 or more employees) to report on ethnicity and disability pay gaps. It has now launched a consultation seeking views on how it should be implemented.
The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Hewston v Ofsted serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of using policies to set clear workplace standards. It also shows that, if an act isn’t misconduct, an employer cannot throw other factors (such as reputational damage and a lack of ‘insight’) into the mix to bump it up. In this case, the Claimant, an experienced Ofsted inspector with a clean disciplinary record, was summarily dismissed after touching a pupil’s forehead and shoulder to remove rainwater.
Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) is the amount payable by employers when an employee is absent from work due to sickness. It is currently set at a flat rate of £118.75 (from 6th April 2025). There are certain eligibility requirements, including the fact that SSP is not currently payable during the first three days of absence, known as ‘waiting days’ and that those earning below the Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) – £125 per week – were not eligible.