Image
Image

In the February edition of our Employment Law & HR update, we have published a selection of news, insights, case studies and more on topics including:
  • A key case in discrimination and managing conflicting beliefs; 
  • Can an employee objecting to a transfer amount to a dismissal;
  • How comments about accent can amount to harassment;
  • New ACAS guidance on neurodiversity; and
  • Dress codes at work Q&A. 
If you require further information on anything included in this update or any employment issue you may be facing, please do not hesitate to contact the Employment team on 01332 867 766 or by replying to this email.
Image
CASE STUDY
COURT OF APPEAL RULES IN HIGGS V FARMOR’S SCHOOL CASE

The recent Court of Appeal ruling in Higgs v Farmor’s School highlights the important balance employers must strike between workplace rights and online expression.

The case: Mrs. Higgs, a school administrator, posted criticism of the teaching of same-sex relationships and gender fluidity on a private Facebook page. A parent complaint about her comments led to her suspension and eventual dismissal for gross misconduct, with the school arguing that her posts breached its social media policy and could harm its reputation.

The outcome: The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned the initial Tribunal’s ruling, emphasising the need for proportionality. The Court of Appeal later confirmed that her dismissal was unlawful, as her posts—despite being contentious—were private and not directly linked to her work. The school failed to prove direct reputational harm.

Key takeaways: Dismissal for expressing a protected belief may be discriminatory unless the employer justifies the response as proportionate. Employers must carefully assess context, audience, and language when addressing such cases to avoid unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.

Image
CASE STUDY
TUPE OBJECTION RULED AS DISMISSAL – TRANSFEROR HELD LIABLE

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling confirms that where an employee objects to a TUPE transfer due to a substantial and detrimental change in working conditions, the transferor, not the transferee, is liable for dismissal.

The case: Bus driver Mr De Marchi objected to a TUPE transfer after learning he would have to work from a garage an hour away from his home. His employer, London United Busways Ltd (the transferor), treated his objection as a resignation. He challenged this, arguing he had been unfairly dismissed.

The outcome: The EAT ultimately upheld his claim, confirming that an objection based on material detriment can amount to dismissal by the transferor. This ruling highlights the importance of clear communication in TUPE transfers and ensuring employees understand their options.

Key takeaway: Transferors may still be liable for dismissals arising from detrimental changes, even after a transfer. Employers should consult staff, clarify objections vs. resignations, and seek indemnities from transferees where necessary.

Image
CASE STUDY
COMMENTS ON A COLLEAGUE’S ACCENT MAY CONSTITUTE RACIAL HARASSMENT

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling clarifies that comments about a person’s accent may amount to harassment related to race, even if the intent was not discriminatory. This expands the potential liability for employers for acts carried out by their employees.

The case: Ms Carozzi, a Brazilian national of Jewish ethnic origin, worked at the University of Hertfordshire. During her probation, colleagues remarked that her accent was "very strong" and made her difficult to understand. She later resigned and brought a number of claims, including harassment on the grounds of race. The Employment Tribunal (ET) initially rejected her claim, ruling that the comments were about intelligibility, not race.

The outcome: The EAT overturned this decision, confirming that harassment can occur even without discriminatory intent. It ruled that accent is linked to national or ethnic identity, and criticising it could violate a person’s dignity. This aligns with past rulings, such as British Bung Manufacturing v Finn, where calling a man a “bald c*nt” was deemed sex-related harassment.

Key takeaway: Employers must consider the impact of comments, not just intent. A wide range of workplace behaviours can constitute harassment. To minimise risk, employers should train staff on appropriate workplace conduct and handle complaints carefully.

Image
INSIGHT
NEW ACAS GUIDANCE ON NEURODIVERSITY: SUPPORTING INCLUSIVE WORKPLACES

ACAS has published new guidance to help employers create more inclusive workplaces for neurodiverse employees, aligning with the Equality Act 2010. Neurodiversity encompasses conditions such as ADHD, autism, dyslexia, and dyspraxia, which may be classed as disabilities, offering protection from discrimination and requiring reasonable adjustments.

The guidance encourages raising awareness within organisations to support neurodivergent employees by:

  • Integrating neurodiversity into mandatory training;
  • Hosting awareness days;
  • Fostering open conversations; and
  • Senior leaders should also lead by example and support the establishment of staff networks.

A recent ACAS poll revealed that 45% of respondents reported a lack of organisational knowledge on neurodiversity, with 39% noting that line managers struggle to discuss the topic. In response, ACAS advises employers to have respectful, open discussions with neurodivergent employees to understand how their condition may impact their work. It’s important to offer tailored support, such as noise-cancelling headphones or permanent workstations.

Employers should consider adjustments on a case-by-case basis, with some being as simple as changing work processes or seeking expert advice. Additionally, recognising and utilising the strengths of neurodiverse employees can contribute to their success and workplace inclusion.

Image
INSIGHT
UK UNIFORM LAWS: KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS

What are the legal requirements around dress codes and uniforms at work? While UK law does not mandate dress codes, employers can set policies—but they must be fair, non-discriminatory, and clearly communicated.

Why have a policy? A well-defined dress code helps maintain professional standards, reinforce branding, and ensure compliance with health and safety requirements.

⚠️ What to avoid? Policies must not discriminate based on protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Consider reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and avoid gender-biased requirements.

💷 Who pays for uniforms? Employers aren’t legally required to cover uniform costs, but deductions from wages must not breach minimum wage laws. PPE, however, must be provided free of charge.

CONTACT US
Do you need assistance?
_____
 
Speak to one of our employment law & HR experts
 
© Copyright 2024 | Flint Bishop Limited. All rights reserved

The content of this email is provided for general interest and information. It contains only a brief overview of aspects of the subject matter and is not intended to provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to provide a substitute for it. Your information will be processed in accordance with our privacy notice. Flint Bishop Limited (Flint Bishop) is a Limited Company registered in England and Wales (Reg No: 05991683). Registered office: Pinnacle Building, 2 Prospect Place, Pride Park, Derby DE24 8HG. Flint Bishop Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA ID: 8006955). VAT No: 469 2812 59. The word ‘partner’, used in connection with Flint Bishop, refers to a director or employee and should not be construed as indicating any relationship of partnership (within the meaning of the Partnership Act 1890) exists between all or any of the individuals so designated or between any individual and Flint Bishop. A list of directors’ names is available for inspection at our registered office. Flint Bishop, Flint Bishop Solicitors, FB Costs and FB Training are also trading names of Flint Bishop Limited.
 
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
Youtube
View in your browser  |  Subscription Preferences  |   Unsubscribe