In this issue of our monthly employment case law update, we round up the most interesting and noteworthy cases for employers from 2024. Given the breadth of developments in employment law during this period, shortlisting cases was a particular challenge, but our monthly case law updates continue to be available on our website for your reference.
Flexible working
Miss Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority
January 2024
Miss Wilson, a manager at the FCA since 2015, had been working remotely due to health reasons since the 2020 pandemic. When the FCA transitioned to a hybrid working model requiring two office days per week, she requested to continue full-time remote work. The FCA denied her request, citing potential detriments to quality and performance. The tribunal found that while the FCA exceeded the statutory decision period, warranting compensation, their refusal of her flexible working request was justified based on legitimate business reasons.
Employers should handle flexible working requests promptly and provide clear, fact-based reasons when denying such requests. It’s essential to balance employee preferences with legitimate business needs, ensuring decisions are well-documented and communicated.
Disability discrimination
Baldwin v Cleves School and Ors
February 2024
The claimant alleged direct disability discrimination against her employer and two individual employees. While the tribunal found the employer liable, it initially absolved the individual employees. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned this, ruling that employees can be individually liable for discriminatory acts unless they reasonably believe their actions are lawful based on employer guidance.
Employers must ensure that all staff understand their personal liability concerning discriminatory actions. Comprehensive training and clear policies are crucial to prevent discrimination and protect both the organisation and its employees.
Race discrimination
Atif v Dolce & Gabbana
April 2024
Ms. Atif, an Algerian employee, alleged race discrimination after her dismissal for purportedly abusing the company’s sickness policy. The tribunal initially dismissed her claim, but the EAT found that she presented facts implying discrimination, such as differential treatment compared to Italian colleagues, warranting further examination.
Employers should ensure consistent treatment of all employees, regardless of race or nationality, and thoroughly investigate discrimination claims to prevent potential legal challenges.
Unfair dismissal & discrimination
Ms N Bodis v Lindfield Christian Care Home Ltd
May 2024
Ms. Bodis, suffering from anxiety and depression, was dismissed after being accused of misconduct. The tribunal found that her behavior, influenced by her disability, was a factor in the employer’s decision, constituting discrimination arising from disability under the Equality Act 2010.
Employers must consider how an employee’s disability may influence behavior and ensure that disciplinary actions do not result in discrimination arising from disability.
Zero Hour Contracts
Taylor’s Services Ltd v HMRC
June 2024
Taylor’s Services employed zero-hours workers who traveled to various farms. HMRC issued a notice for underpayment of the national minimum wage (NMW), asserting that travel time should be compensated. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) determined that time spent solely on travel from home to work does not qualify as “time work” under NMW regulations unless actual work is performed during the travel.
Employers should clearly define working hours and travel time in employment contracts to ensure compliance with NMW regulations and avoid potential disputes.
Discrimination & Gender Critical Beliefs
Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited and others
July 2024
The claimant, a tenant at Garden Court Chambers, expressed gender-critical beliefs and criticised Stonewall’s stance on trans rights, leading to complaints, including one from Stonewall. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the investigation and outcomes constituted detriments linked to the claimant’s protected beliefs, but Stonewall was not held liable for inducing discrimination under section 111 of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT ruled that responsibility for the discriminatory actions rested solely with GCC, as it was not fair or reasonable to hold Stonewall accountable for GCC’s decisions.
Employers must independently assess external complaints, ensuring their actions remain fair and unbiased, particularly when dealing with protected beliefs. Clear procedures and impartial investigations are critical to minimising risks of discrimination claims.
Equal Pay
Next Retail
August 2024
Thousands of store staff at Next won a six-year legal battle for equal pay. The Employment Tribunal determined that Next failed to justify paying predominantly female retail consultants less than warehouse workers, leading to significant back pay awards and mandated contract equalisation.
Employment Status
HMRC v PGMOL
September 2024
The case involved referees contracted by PGMOL on a part-time, match-by-match basis, with individual contracts formed for each appointment. The Court examined whether this arrangement classified the referees as “employees,” requiring PGMOL to deduct income tax and national insurance contributions. Documents such as codes of conduct and fitness protocols were considered in assessing whether PGMOL exercised sufficient control to establish an employment relationship.
Employment status is determined not just by written contracts but also by the broader context, including additional communications and practices. Employers should ensure clarity in agreements with casual or part-time workers and be aware of the government’s proposed reforms to unify “employee” and “worker” classifications, which could significantly impact hiring practices.
Discrimination
Ms K Hibbert v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
October 2024
Mrs Hibbert, a safeguarding sergeant with Thames Valley Police, brought claims for disability discrimination and constructive dismissal after her employer withdrew permission for her therapeutic side business, despite occupational health recommendations. Following complaints about her continued business activity during medical leave, TVP revoked her business interest and initiated disciplinary proceedings, leading to her resignation. The tribunal found that TVP’s actions failed to accommodate her mental health needs, constituting disability discrimination, and awarded her £1.1 million in compensation, including future income and pension losses.
Employers must prioritise reasonable adjustments for employees with disabilities, particularly when therapeutic activities are supported by medical professionals. Careful consideration of employee needs, clear communication, and fair handling of disciplinary processes are essential to mitigating risks of discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010.
Holiday Pay
Deksne v Ambitions Ltd [2024] EAT 171
November 2024
In Deksne v Ambitions Ltd, the claimant alleged unlawful deductions from wages due to holiday pay underpayments. Initially dismissed by the tribunal due to gaps exceeding three months between underpayments breaking the “series” rule, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) later reversed this decision following the Supreme Court’s Agnew ruling, which stated such gaps do not break the series. The EAT held that all underpayments caused by the same calculation error formed a continuous series and substituted a finding of unlawful deductions.
Employers must review and ensure accuracy in holiday pay calculations, as claims for systemic underpayments may now cover up to two years if linked as part of a series. Relying on gaps between deductions as a defence is no longer valid, making robust payroll systems and proactive correction of errors essential to mitigate legal risks.
Need Assistance?
If you have a question about employment case law and the impact of tribunal and court decisions on your business, we can help. Working closely with our specialist human resource colleagues, we offer a holistic advisory and support service for employers encompassing both the legal and people risks of workforce management. Speak to our experts today for advice.
Author
Founder and Managing Director Anne Morris is a fully qualified solicitor and trusted adviser to large corporates through to SMEs, providing strategic immigration and global mobility advice to support employers with UK operations to meet their workforce needs through corporate immigration.
She is a recognised by Legal 500 and Chambers as a legal expert and delivers Board-level advice on business migration and compliance risk management as well as overseeing the firm’s development of new client propositions and delivery of cost and time efficient processing of applications.
Anne is an active public speaker, immigration commentator, and immigration policy contributor and regularly hosts training sessions for employers and HR professionals
