Tag: Discrimination

Categories
Beliefs Case Law Diversity Employment Law Employment Tribunal Equality Act 2010 Freedom of Speech Lousha Reynolds

Balancing Beliefs: Why the EAT Lister v New College Swindon judgement matters

Royal Courts of Justice, London

The UK employment law community is awaiting a pivotal decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT): the judgement in Lister v New College Swindon.

Following a preliminary hearing in May 2025, this appeal is one of the most significant belief discrimination cases of the year. For employers, particularly those in the education and public sectors, the outcome will define the practical boundaries between an employee’s right to hold gender-critical beliefs and an employer’s duty to protect service users from harassment.

The Background: Where we left off

The original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision in March 2024 was a comprehensive victory for the employer. Kevin Lister, a maths lecturer, was dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to use the preferred name and pronouns of a transitioning student (“Student A”).

The ET found that while Mr Lister’s gender-critical beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 (following the precedent in Forstater), his manifestation of those beliefs was “objectionable.” Key factors included:

  • The power imbalance: Mr Lister was a teacher in a position of authority over a minor. 
  • The gender-neutral approach: Rather than using the student’s name, he gestured toward them, which the student found demeaning. 
  • Refusal to comply: During the disciplinary process, he maintained he would not change his behaviour, leaving the college with little choice but to dismiss him to prevent ongoing harm.

Why the appeal is critical

The EAT is now considering whether the first tribunal correctly applied the “boundary” between holding a belief and manifesting it. Mr Lister’s appeal argues that:

  1. The college’s gender reassignment policy was inherently discriminatory by requiring him to act against his conscience.
  2. The tribunal failed to properly balance his Article 9 (Freedom of Thought) and Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

For legal practitioners, the central question is whether an employer can mandate the use of preferred pronouns in a workplace or educational setting without it amounting to “compelled speech” or indirect discrimination.

What employers should watch for

This judgement will likely provide much-needed clarity on the “proportionality” test. We expect the EAT to address:

Key Issue Employer Consideration 
Manifestation vs. Belief At what point does expressing a belief become “manifestly objectionable” conduct? 
Policy Enforcement Can an employer fairly dismiss an employee solely for refusing to follow a “preferred pronoun” policy? 
Safeguarding Does the duty of care toward students/vulnerable groups trump an employee’s right to manifest their beliefs? 

Practical steps for HR and management

While we await the final word from the EAT, businesses should not remain static. We recommend:

  • Reviewing equality policies: Ensure your policies on gender reassignment and religion/belief are balanced. They should emphasise respect and dignity for all without appearing to indoctrinate or silence protected beliefs.
  • Training on clashing rights: Managers need to understand that two people can have competing protected characteristics. The goal is to manage the impact of the behaviour, not the belief itself.
  • Focus on proportionality: If an employee refuses to comply with a policy, consider whether a less severe sanction than dismissal is possible, unless, as in Lister’s case, the employee makes it clear they will never change their conduct.

Looking ahead

The Lister appeal arrives at a time of heightened sensitivity, following the Government’s long-awaited (and still debated) guidance on gender questioning children in schools. The EAT’s decision will serve as a lighthouse for how these complex, often emotive issues are handled in the tribunal system for years to come.

Do your current Equality and Diversity policies align with the latest EAT guidance?

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Disability Discrimination Law Diversity Employment Law Equality Act 2010 Lousha Reynolds Neurodiversity Recruitment

Thinking Differently: Why neurodiversity is a workplace superpower

Collaborative meeting in an office around a table

With it being Neurodiversity Celebration Week (16th–20th March), we felt that it was time to move beyond awareness and start talking more about action.

In the UK, it’s estimated that around 1 in 7 people are neurodivergent. This includes ADHD, Autism, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, and Tourette’s, among others. For too long, recruitment processes and office environments have been designed around the “typical” brain. Often filtering out some of the most creative, analytical, and dedicated talent in the workforce.

From a British employment law perspective, supporting different ways of thinking is not only the right thing to do, but is also a legal requirement. To help business leaders and HR professionals, we’ve focused in on a few things to help better recognise and support neurodiversity at work.

Under the Equality Act 2010, many neurodivergent conditions meet the legal definition of a disability, where that condition has a substantial, adverse impact on the individual’s ability to carry out their normal daily activities. In such cases, this means that employees have a right to protection from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.

Crucially, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments. This duty is “proactive,” meaning you shouldn’t wait for an employee to reach a breaking point before offering support. By fostering an environment where adjustments are normalised, you stay ahead of legal risks and, more importantly, help your team thrive.

2. Redefining “reasonable adjustments”

Support doesn’t always mean expensive equipment. Often, the most impactful changes cost nothing but a shift in mindset. Effective adjustments often include:

  • Environmental tweaks: Providing noise-cancelling headphones, adjustable lighting, or quiet zones for deep focus.
  • Communication shifts: Giving instructions in writing rather than just verbally or allowing for camera-off meetings to reduce sensory overload.
  • Flexibility: Allowing for flexible start and end times to avoid the sensory stress of peak-time commutes.

3. Rethinking recruitment

The traditional hour-long, face-to-face interview is often a test of social performance rather than job competency. To support different ways of thinking, we can look at:

  • Skills-based assessments: Letting candidates demonstrate what they can do rather than just what they can say.
  • Clear job descriptions: Removing jargon and fluff (like “must be a great multitasker”) if it isn’t essential to the role.

4. Moving from “culture fit” to “culture enhancement”

In corporate culture, we often talk about culture fit. However, this can inadvertently lead to mini-me hiring, where everyone thinks and acts the same way. 

To truly celebrate neurodiversity, we should look to add to our work culture. A neurodivergent employee might approach a problem from an angle no one else has considered. They might spot patterns others miss or bring a level of hyper-focus that drives a project to completion. Different ways of thinking are a competitive advantage.

How to get involved this Neurodiversity Celebration Week

This week is a fantastic opportunity to kickstart the conversation. You can:

  • Educate: Host a lunch-and-learn or share resources from the Neurodiversity Celebration Week website.
  • Listen: Create a safe space for employees to share their experiences (if they wish) and what support looks like for them.
  • Audit: Review your internal policies, from HR handbooks to your physical office layout, to see if they are inclusive of all brain types.

Neurodiversity isn’t something to be fixed or managed. It’s something to be celebrated. When we design a world that works for neurodivergent people, we inadvertently create a better, more flexible, and more productive workplace for everyone.

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Discrimination Law Diversity Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Offer of Employment Reasonable Adjustments Recruitment

Employers making reasonable adjustments in recruitment

View of the City of London at sunset

An applicant for a job who had dyspraxia asked to make an oral job application instead of filling the online form that the employer required. The employer emailed him with repeated requests asking him to explain what his difficulty was with the online process. The individual had difficulty with written communication, indeed that was the reason behind his request in the first place, so he also struggled to deal with these emails. The employer ought to have realised this as they knew about the dyspraxia. The Tribunal ruled that a reasonable employer would have phoned the applicant in order to understand their situation more fully.

A factual quirk of this case is that the applicant was seeking to return to the same team, with the job applications being judged by the same line manager who had dismissed him 8 months previously (failed probation). Understandably, that may have been behind the employer’s reluctance to engage with the individual but what you don’t get to know is to what extent they knew about the dyspraxia during the probationary period and what reasonable adjustments were made at that stage to assist the individual in order to level the playing field and put them into a position where they might have been able to pass the probationary period.

This case illustrates the importance of making reasonable adjustments not only for your own employees such as probationers but for all job applicants. It also illustrates how sometimes the reasonable adjustment is something very cheap and easy to do (a phone call instead of an email) and how as soon as the employer has knowledge there is a disability they should be making adjustments not waiting for the employee to ask.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Bullying and Harassment Discrimination Law Diversity Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Freedom of Speech Gender Inclusivity Video

Video | Employment Tribunal on gender-critical beliefs

YouTube video playing on a phone

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing in detail the recent Employment Tribunal case involving Maya Forstater which centred around gender-critical beliefs and whether she was unfairly discriminated against.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Compensation Constructive Dismissal Disability Diversity Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Health Conditions Protected Characteristics

We can learn from a recent disability discrimination case

Royal Courts of Justice, London

Last year, a university law lecturer at BPP University named Elizabeth Aylott was constructively unfairly dismissed and unfavourably treated because of something arising from her disability, despite the fact that other disability related claims were dismissed. She suffered from autistic spectrum disorder, anxiety and depression, which were her disabilities.

A member of the management team talked about her with a colleague and referred to her as a good worker but “mad as a box of frogs”. This comment then got back to her.

She found herself working very long hours including weekends and evenings.

A complaint resulted in a breakdown in the relationship with her employer, in particular, the employer did not allow her to see the complaint or defend herself.

Those three acts were found to be unfavourable treatment, as was the failure to refer her to occupational health.

Other concerns involved a crass and insensitive remark made about how she should have been able to handle her workload – this was inappropriate in the context of what was clearly a poor mental state.

Her employer was found to have failed to reduce her workload or provide extra support or heed any of the indications that she was not coping. Given the numbers of people who are experiencing challenges through the pandemic, you can see how easily an employer can fall into this trap and be found to be guilty of failing to do the right things.

Whenever anybody is complaining of their workload, the hours that they are working or exhibiting other signs that they are suffering from stress and not coping, which could be falling productivity, unusual disengagement or irritability and being more sensitive than normal in relation to normal day to day work related matters, an employer should be considering what they can do to support the employee.

One of the interesting things in this case, is that the employee found a job fairly quickly, so within a 3 month period of her having resigned. However, the Employment Tribunal still awarded her £71,000 worth of compensation for future losses (presumably her new job did not pay as much), £32,000 for past financial losses – so bridging the gap between the jobs, and £20,000 for injury to feelings. The Judge noted that the discriminatory conduct had been integral as to why she chose to resign and that although she had commenced working elsewhere, she remained unwell throughout the period up to the Hearing, when she was able to talk about how the treatment she had received had affected her. This shouldn’t be underestimated.

Managers need to be aware that during a Section 15 of the Equality Act claim that somebody has suffered from discrimination arising from a disability, they need to do the following:

  • Show that their disability causes “something”. That something might be fatigue or more stressed when under pressure or to lose their concentration or not perform as well under pressure.
  • If as a result of that “something” they then receive unfavourable treatment, so that might be performance management, sickness absence management or they aren’t promoted, put forward for training or allocated work, those actions can then be connected back to the disability. The employer has to then show that they are pursuing a legitimate aim and have done so in a proportionate manner when carrying out those actions.
  • For example, it may be that managing absence or attendance at work is a legitimate aim but if the employer has not obtained occupational health advice and has not made real efforts as regards reasonable adjustments, the employer is unlikely to be able to show that their actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Age Discrimination Anna Denton-Jones Disability Diversity Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Harassment HR Training

The requirement for diversity training

Royal Courts of Justice, London

As if everyone in HR and business is not under enough pressure at the moment, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in a case Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen has confirmed that it regards training provided 2 years ago on equality and diversity “stale” and ineffective. This was in the context of a racial harassment case. You will be familiar with the idea that in order for an employer to escape liability, if there, is to say that they as employer took all reasonable steps to prevent employees from committing the particular discriminatory act.

It has long been the case that employers present the Tribunal with the fact that the employee protagonist in any harassment case has undergone training and that they have policies of not tolerating such acts of harassment.

If you had asked me to guess how long it took training to become stale and ineffective, I might have said 4-5 years. It is really interesting that the EAT wasn’t going to allow the employer to rely on having given somebody training 2 years ago and suggests that employers are going to need to make some sort of refresher training an annual event. This will of course go for all forms of harassment, so every protected characteristic, not just that of race.

In this particular case, the EAT found that the need for a refresher on a regular basis was amplified by remarks made in the case and the failure of other colleagues to react to the harassment they had witnessed or that had been complained about, and showed the training wasn’t in anyone’s minds. The fact that the protagonist felt that what they had said was just banter was further evidence that the training given had faded from memory and the managers didn’t know what to do when they observed harassment or it was reported to them, suggested that training had also faded from their memories. The particular employer had actually provided further training to the protagonist after the incident so that proved that they also thought further training was necessary, thus the employer couldn’t escape liability.

Having seen a real shift as a result of the MeToo movement, attitudes towards sexual harassment in the workplace and a further big shift as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement means that there is a huge spotlight at the moment over conduct in the workplace and a real sea change in what is expected to be tolerated. It could be that as the generations move into the workforce who are more likely to refuse to accept old norms or tolerate what they see as inappropriate, we see a sea change but for now the employer needs to be driving the change and reinforcing the message whenever it can.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Menopause Mental Health Protected Characteristics

Guest Blog | The Menopause — Why should organisations bother?

View of the City of London at sunset

Katie Day is a Director at RDP International Ltd

Policies and guidelines around mental health are in place.

Established and clear policies have been in existence for pregnant women and parental leave for many years.

Ways of recording reasons for absence and supporting staff (via Employee Assistance Programmes for example) are well used.

The menopause.

Ah.

Not so good there then!

I find this puzzling. Not every woman will experience pregnancy, yet every woman, if she lives long enough, will experience the menopause. As we make up around 52% of the population, and around 57% of that number are of key menopausal age (between 40 and 65). That’s a lot of women who will go through this life transition!

It is estimated that absence due to menopause (where woman are not supported at work) represents a cost to the UK economy of around £7.3 million per year1.  According to the Government Report on Menopause, women at menopausal life phase are the fastest growing workforce demographic, and according to the Faculty of Occupational Medicine nearly 8 out of 10 peri- and post-menopausal women are in work.

Women are lying. Around 75% of women say they do not feel confident to cite the menopause as the reason for their absence at work, so are reporting ‘other reasons’ for their absence. They feel really bad about doing this, which further exacerbates their feelings of vulnerability. Ensuring there is a supportive workplace culture is the responsibility of the organisation, not the responsibility of the women who work there.

One in four women consider leaving their job during this life phase.

Combine the above statistics with the legal requirements of employers to support and protect staff, this is a topic that cannot be ignored within the business community.

When asked, women in the UK report the following menopausal experiences as just some that have a negative impact for them at work, there are others2:

  • Irritability: 56%
  • Poor concentration: 51%
  • Tiredness: 51%
  • Poor memory: 50%

Women want to talk with other women going through this life phase, to have more information. They want management awareness of the topic, combined with information and advice from their employer. They want access to support via training sessions and networks.

Not all the responsibility lies with the employer of course. It is shared with the woman herself. We can all take ownership of our health and find out how we can best support ourselves, navigate this transition with the maximum ease and minimum stress and emerge stronger and even more resilient.

First and foremost we need to ‘normalise’ the conversation. What do I mean by this? Well, we all need to feel comfortable talking about ‘the M word’. If, as women, we are uncomfortable verbalising our experience(s), then it is pretty much guaranteed that people around us will also feel uncomfortable. The menopause is a natural part of life, and once we accept and embrace this life transition and see it for what it is – a temporary rite of passage, we are able to recognise that we can, to some degree, sail through rather than stumble through.

Honest and open conversations are the key. We all need to acknowledge the important and valuable contribution women of menopausal age make to the business world. By ‘all’ I mean women themselves and their employers. To lose all that experience and expertise is simply bad business and poor workplace practice.

With two employee tribunals (2012 and 2018),3 both of which went in favour of the claimant (menopausal woman), organisations ignore this issue at their peril. It is increasingly crucial that employers ensure they become, and remain, employers of choice – for everyone. ‘Everyone’ must not exclude women of menopausal age.

We work with some truly wonderful organisations who have the courage to tackle this issue head on, brave enough to make the changes necessary and savvy enough to ensure they retain some of their best talent. Do you work for, or run, one of these organisations? Or is there room for improvement?

Many of our clients are considering making our Supporting people during the menopause session mandatory for every manager they employ.

More and more men within our client organisations are putting themselves forward to be a champion and a ‘point of contact’ for women. They encourage other men to learn, change and support. They are the benchmarks all people need to follow.

Let us all embrace the strength and value of this time in a woman’s life, promote the wisdom, experience and expertise of women and collaborate to create an even more resilient and successful workplace.

Katie Day

Director

RDP International Ltd

katie@rdp-int.com

RDP International works with organisations on: leadership / communication / all matters ‘midlife’

www.rdp-int.com

Join the conversation:

LinkedIn:        Midlife Matters Group

Twitter:           @Midlife_Matters

Facebook:        Midlife Matters

  1. Kleinman NL, et al. (2013)

Direct and indirect costs of women diagnosed with menopause symptoms

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2013 Apr;55(4): 465-70

  1. Griffiths A, et al. (2013)

Menopause and work: An electronic survey of employees’ attitudes in the UK

Maturitas 76 (2013): 155– 159

  1. Merchant v BT plc (ET/1401305/11, 27 February 2012)

Reported in below:

Okill A (2017)

Time to tackle the myths and taboos of the menopause in the workplace

HR News (October 2017): http://hrnews.co.uk/time-tackle-myths-taboos-menopause-workplace/ 

Katie Day highlights the need for workplace support for menopausal women, emphasising the importance of normalising discussions and providing resources.

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Articles Disability Discrimination Law Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Health and Safety Health Conditions Pay Return to Work Sick Pay

Can you withhold sick pay for staff with sporting injuries?

View of the City of London at sunset

You may have come across clauses in a sickness policy or in contracts of employment where the employer reserves the right to review the payment of contractual sick pay (and not pay) if the employee had been injured participating in a sport or leisure activity.

The London Marathon this week got me thinking about this.

I’ve previously always used the example (when explaining the clause to clients) of a keen rugby player. If they get injured on a fairly regular basis why should the employer keep coughing up when this is hardly accidental and is going to keep costing them? There are even City firms who won’t allow you to (for example) play rugby because they don’t want you coming into work on a Monday morning covered in bruises and looking like you’ve been fighting because it creates the wrong impression, but that’s another matter…

None of us go out aiming to get injured, but to what extent can an employer withhold sick pay from someone who (say) breaks a leg running in a marathon, riding a horse or riding a bike?

There is no obligation to pay sick pay over and above SSP in general. If employers choose to pay contractual sick pay they can choose how long they want to pay it for, how it is to be calculated, and any conditions attached to payment. Thus it is permitted for an employer to reserve the right not to make payment in certain circumstances as in the case of the clause we are discussing or when they say nothing will be paid until the employee has passed their probationary period.

As with so many things in employment law, firstly care has to be taken to ensure that any provision by the employer is clear so that entitlement at any given time can be calculated.

Secondly, where the matter is reserved for ‘management discretion’ care needs to be taken to treat similar cases in a similar way to prevent unfairness. When does a ‘leisure activity’ (riding a bike with a friend round the park to go for a coffee) become a sport? Maybe it’s when the activity becomes competitive? Or is it more about the level of risk involved, so high risk pursuits like skiing, white water rafting and taking your horse cross country (which are more likely to result in injury) could result in sick pay being withdrawn but not general sports?

The third consideration the employer will need to make is what signal withdrawal of sick pay will give staff. Will the invoking of the clause to withhold pay come across as harsh? Will it put people off wanting to work in the organisation because it comes across as too uncaring? Most employers are quite sensible about this for this very reason and only use it in the tiny percentage of cases where a staff member is regularly injured – like the semi-professional rugby player.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law