Tag: #GDPR

banner services

News & Views

Employment Law General Update – April 2025

  • Anne-Marie Pavitt,

  • 23rd April 2025

Employment Law

Lots of updates in this month’s newsletter. New entitlements came into force at the beginning of the month with regard to neonatal care leave and statutory pay. Whilst a survey has found LGBTQ+ employees feel unsupported by their HR teams, the government is busy investigating race and disability rights issues and asking for your help with this. A survey has been carried out looking at workplace abuse and changing trends in employment and there are some important changes to immigration and sponsorship fees and guidance from the ICO about storage of personal data.

  • Parental Leave & Pay: Government guidance on statutory neonatal care leave and pay published
  • Equality: Study finds nearly half of LGBTQ+ employees feel unsupported by HR
  • Equality (Race and Disability) Bill: government issues equality law call for evidence
  • Employment Survey: Survey highlights workplace abuse and changing trends in employment
  • Immigration: Changes to the definition of “small sponsor” will impact some sponsorship fees
  • Data: ICO publishes new guidance on anonymisation and pseudonymisation

Parental Leave & Pay: Government guidance on statutory neonatal care leave and pay published

New statutory entitlements to neonatal care leave (NCL) and neonatal care pay (SNCP) came into force on 6 April 2025. On 6 April 2025, the government published a suite of new guidance for employees and employers on NCL and SNCP:

ACAS previously published its new guidance on NCL and SNCP on 2 April 2025. Read it here.

Back to the top

Equality: Study finds nearly half of LGBTQ+ employees feel unsupported by HR

On 14 April, website People Management reported that a study carried out by Pride in Leadership, a UK-based LGBTQ+ Leaders’ Community, has revealed that nearly half of LGBTQ+ employees feel unsupported by their employers’ HR departments when facing LGBTQ+-related issues. The survey of 1,017 LGBTQ+ individuals found that 42% of respondents felt that their concerns were “brushed off” by HR, highlighting a significant gap in support and understanding.

The study identified several barriers to LGBTQ+ career advancement, including a lack of inclusive workplace policies, experiences of discrimination and biased recruitment practices. Among the respondents, 85% reported that they have encountered significant obstacles linked to their identity, with a lack of representation in leadership being a major concern. Only 15% of respondents felt that their workplace was a safe space to share their identity.

To address these issues, the study calls for HR departments to take a more proactive approach to create a supportive and inclusive work environment. This includes providing training on LGBTQ+-specific issues, developing and implementing inclusive policies, and promoting diversity and representation in leadership. It also urges employers to actively work to eliminate biased recruitment practices and ensure that hiring processes are transparent and fair.

Back to the top

Equality (Race and Disability) Bill: Government issues equality law call for evidence

On 7 April 2025, the Office for Equality and Opportunity published a call for evidence on equality law. The wide-ranging call for evidence seeks views and evidence on areas the government intends to address in the forthcoming Equality (Race and Disability) Bill. These include extending the equal pay provisions in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) to race and disability, ensuring that employers cannot outsource services to avoid paying equal pay, improving enforcement of equal pay by setting up a new Equal Pay Regulatory and Enforcement Unit and improving pay transparency by adopting measures similar to those in the Pay Transparency Directive (2023/970/EU).

The government also plans to bring section 14 of the EqA 2010 into force, allowing direct discrimination claims for combined or dual discrimination to be brought in the employment tribunal. It seeks views and evidence on the prevalence of combined discrimination, including how levels and patterns of combined discrimination may differ across different situations, sectors and regions, and the effectiveness of the remedies available. Evidence is also sought in relation to the prevalence of combined discrimination in relation to indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and the protected characteristics of pregnancy and maternity and marriage and civil partnership, which are not currently covered by section 14.

The Employment Rights Bill will introduce the power to make regulations specifying the steps employers must take to prevent workplace sexual harassment. To assist in the drafting of those regulations, evidence is sought on measures employers can take that have proved effective in practice to reduce or prevent workplace sexual harassment. Evidence is also requested in order to assist the government in determining whether protection against sexual harassment should be extended to volunteers.

Views and evidence are also sought on the extent to which the public sector equality duty is complied with by non-public bodies exercising public functions and the effectiveness of the implementation of the socio-economic duty in Scotland and Wales, with a view to commencing the duty in England.

The call for evidence runs until 30 June 2025. You can read more here: https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/equality-law-call-for-evidence.

Back to the top

Employment Survey: Survey highlights workplace abuse and changing trends in employment

A survey conducted by academics from Cardiff University, UCL, Nuffield College, Oxford, and the University of Surrey, has highlighted the prevalence of workplace abuse in the UK. The Skills and Employment Survey, which is conducted every six years, found that one in seven employees has experienced some form of workplace abuse, including bullying, violence, and sexual harassment. The survey revealed that some occupations, such as nursing (32%) and teaching (28%), are at higher risk of abuse, with women and night workers also being more vulnerable.

The survey also highlighted the impact of the pandemic on the way we work, with over half of workers using spaces intended for other purposes to carry out their work. The adoption of AI is also accelerating, with 24% of those surveyed using AI in their work. However, the use of AI is concentrated in high-paying, high-skill occupations, and is more prevalent among men, younger workers, and those with a degree.

The survey also found that demand for graduate-level qualifications continues to increase, with almost half of workers needing a degree for their current job. However, the number of workers with graduate-level qualifications has declined slightly. The survey also revealed a changing perception of unions, with over a third of employees in non-unionised organisations saying they would vote to establish a union if given the chance.

The researchers warned of the pitfalls and inequality involved in many employees’ working arrangements, particularly with regards to working from home. While some employees are able to create a home office, others are not, and the survey found that money and power play a significant role in determining who is able to work from home and create a comfortable workspace. The researchers called for policy to focus on promoting all forms of flexible working, rather than just working from home, to address these inequalities.

Back to the top

Immigration: Changes to the definition of “small sponsor” will impact some sponsorship fees

Sponsors who are defined as “small” pay lower fees for Skilled Worker and Senior or Specialist Worker sponsor licence applications and the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) for these workers’ visa applications.

In defining “small” and “large” sponsors, the Home Office relies on the definition of “small” and “large” companies found in the Companies Act 2006 (section 382), which changed on 6 April 2025. (See also, regulation 2 of the Immigration Skills Charge Regulation 2017 (SI 2017/499).)

The definition of a small company is based on the following three thresholds. If a company exceeds at least two of the three thresholds, it will not be a small company:

  • Number of employees: 50 (this remained unchanged on 6 April 2025).
  • Turnover: £15 million (changed from £10.2 million on 6 April 2025).
  • Balance sheet total: £7.5 million (changed from £5.1 million on 6 April 2025).

If, as a result of this change to the definition of “small company”, the sponsor company’s classification has changed from small to large or vice versa, the sponsor must notify the Home Office within 20 working days using the sponsor management system, to comply with their sponsor reporting duties. The sponsor may need to provide evidence, such as recent company accounts and a list of employees.

For more information see: UK Visas and Immigration: Workers and Temporary Workers – guidance for sponsors part 1: apply for a licence (9 April 2025) and Immigration Skills Charge Regulations (SI 2017/499).

Back to the top

Data: ICO publishes new guidance on anonymisation and pseudonymisation

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published guidance on anonymisation and pseudonymisation. The ICO notes the risks and benefits of sharing personal data, as well as the importance of anonymisation techniques to provide a privacy-friendly alternative to data sharing.

The ICO guidance provides an overview of anonymisation techniques, including their strengths and weaknesses and the suitability of their use in particular situations, including case studies. The main benefits of anonymisation include protecting people’s identities, greater security and improved risk reduction relating to the disclosure or publication of personal data.

The guidance also covers pseudonymisation, which replaces information that directly identifies people. This might include replacing names or identifiers with resource numbers. The ICO reminds organisations that pseudonymisation should not be confused with anonymisation and that pseudonymisation is a way of reducing risk and improving security but not a way of transforming personal data to the extent the law no longer applies.

The guidance also includes advice on accountability and governance measures for organisations and deals with the role that anonymisation plays in the three regimes of data protection law:

  • General processing under Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) (UK GDPR).
  • Law enforcement processing under Part 3 of the DPA 2018.
  • Intelligence services processing under Part 4 of the DPA 2018.

The guidance sits alongside the ICO data sharing code of practice, which gives practical advice on how to share personal data in line with data protection law. The ICO notes that anonymisation offers an alternative way to use or share data by making sure that people are not identifiable.

Although the guidance is not statutory and there is no penalty for not following the recommendations, the ICO will take it into account when looking into an issue about anonymisation.

Back to the top

Further Information

If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

Back

The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.

Related News

banner services

News & Views

Employment Law General Update – October 2023

  • Anne-Marie Pavitt,

  • 24th October 2023

Employment Law

Lots of useful guidance available this month: from the DWP about using fit notes; requirements for employers with regard to right to work checks; and understanding the UK GDPR and DPA legislation to protect your employees’ data.

Health at Work: DWP updates guidance on fit notes

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has updated three pieces of guidance on fit notes, for patients and employees, employers and line managers, and healthcare professionals respectively. This guidance is to explain actions required if you are given a fit note by an employee. It gives advice on what different sections of the fit note mean and how you can use it most effectively to support the health and wellbeing of employees in your organisation. You can view the guidance for employers and line managers here. There is also a checklist and set of case studies to accompany it.

Back to the top

Right to Work Checks: Employers are no longer required to verify a digital CoA with the ECS

The Home Office has updated its guidance for employers carrying out right to work checks on or after 17 October 2023. It removes the requirement for employers to verify a digital Certificate of Application (CoA) with the Home Office Employer Checking Service (ECS) for outstanding EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) applications made on or after 1 July 2021. The online right to work checking service will also not direct employers to verify a digital CoA with the ECS. This requirement has also been removed from the right to rent guidance for landlords.

Data Protection: UK government approves the UK-US data bridge

From 12 October 2023, UK businesses will be able to export personal data to US entities who are certified under the UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF), without the need to conduct a Transfer Risk Assessment, and without needing to enter into the relevant standard contractual clauses or to implement supplementary measures. While this only covers some US organisations in certain circumstances, it is nonetheless a welcome development. You can read more about this from the Information Commissioner here.

Back to the top

Data Protection: An employer’s guide to understanding UK GDPR and DPA 2018

The ICO has recently updated its guidance to understanding GDPR and DPA and explains the importance of an employer’s compliance with Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) and the DPA 2018, particularly in the context of processing a worker’s health information. As a worker’s health data is considered particularly sensitive and is therefore provided a special level of protection under UK GDPR, the Guidance emphasises that there are specific rules an employer is obliged to follow when dealing with such data. The Guidance considers:

  • how an employer can use a worker’s health data fairly (in essence, providing valid justifications for gathering and using health information, ensuring transparency in the process when communicating the necessary privacy information to workers and documenting all decisions made throughout the process); and
  • how an employer can lawfully process a worker’s health data. In lawfully processing a worker’s health data, the Guidance specifies that a ‘lawful basis’ under Article 6 of Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the UK GDPR, must be identified. It further details the additional, stricter requirements needed to process special category data under Article 9 of Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the UK GDPR (which encompasses health information).

To assist employers in navigating the legal sphere surrounding the management of health data, the guidance helpfully identifies the six lawful bases for handling personal data and provides common examples for when these bases might be applicable. The six lawful bases identified are contract, legal obligations, legitimate interests, vital interests, public task and consent. However, as mentioned above, the employer must also adhere to the requirements under Article 9 and identify a special category condition for processing health data.

The guidance outlines the 10 conditions which an employer might wish to rely upon and any additional conditions required to satisfy Article 9. The typical workplace scenarios identified revolve around the lawful and good practice procedures an employer should apply when it comes to sharing a worker’s health data, administering sickness absence documentation and managing information concerning a worker’s impairment or disability. The Guidance is helpful in that it directly answers key questions an employer may have in the context of health data, such as ‘How do we handle sickness and injury records?’ and ‘What if we use medical examinations and drugs and alcohol testing?’. The Guidance clearly outlines the relevant legal requirements and provides good practice advice for each of these common questions.

To assist employers further in ensuring compliance with data protection rules in the context of a worker’s health data, the ICO has also provided several checklists which can be easily accessed by employers whenever they are required to process such information. The checklists can be found here and relate to circumstances involving genetic testing, occupational health schemes, health monitoring, sickness and injury records, and sharing a worker’s health information.


This article has been developed from an original article published by Dentons UK employment hub which can be viewed here.

Back to the top

Further Information:

If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

Back

The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.

Related News

banner services

News & Views

Employment Law General Update – March 2023

  • Employment,

  • 27th March 2023

Employment Law

This month the news focuses on some key employment announcements from the Spring budget, changes to work checks guidance, a new proposed UK version of GDPR and a proposed right to request a more predictable working pattern. Lastly a new government employment champion has been announced to urge businesses to take action on the menopause.

  • Spring Budget 2023: Key Employment Announcements
  • Immigration: Revisions made to right to work checks guidance
  • GDPR: Government announces new UK version of GDPR
  • Working Practices: Proposed new statutory right to request a more predictable working pattern
  • Menopause: Czar urges businesses to step up on policies

Spring Budget 2023 – Key Employment Announcements

In the Spring Budget 2023, delivered on 15 March 2023, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, announced a series of measures intended to support the UK workforce. Among the announcements were the introduction of a new Health and Disability White Paper on how to provide support and opportunities for workers with disabilities, the planned abolition of the lifetime allowance to encourage workers over 50 to stay in employment, the reiteration of government support for Private Members’ Bills providing unpaid carers with additional leave, parents with greater protections against redundancy, and parents of children in neonatal care with paid statutory leave, and commitments to encourage and facilitate flexible working arrangements between employers and employees.

In respect of immigration, Jeremy Hunt announced measures to tackle immediate labour shortages and ease business visits to the UK and further support for those who have come to the UK through the Ukraine Visa Schemes. Building off the Autumn Statement 2022, the Budget confirmed the government’s plan to deliver on three of the five key priorities set out by the Prime Minister in January: to halve inflation, reduce debt and grow the economy. The Spring Budget 2023 lists employment, education and enterprises as priorities for delivering on growth and building a high wage high skill economy.

Back to the top

Immigration: Revisions made to right to work checks guidance

The Home Office has updated its guidance for employers carrying out right to work checks. The guidance was updated late in the day on 28 February 2023 to reflect legislative changes and current practice. Examples include clarifying that employers should carry out on an online check for those with a pending Home Office application, administrative review or appeal, circumstances in which an employer should contact the Employer Checking Service and what employers should do if they are presented with a Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) with an expiry date of 31 December 2024. Similar changes have been made, on the same day, to the right to rent checks guidance for landlords.

Back to the top

GDPR: Government announces new UK version of GDPR

The UK government has announced that British businesses will save billions of pounds through a new version of GDPR, which will replace the EU’s data protection laws after Brexit. The new law will allow UK businesses to avoid costly compliance fees and will maintain high levels of data protection for consumers. The changes are expected to provide a boost to the UK economy and enhance the UK’s reputation as a leader in data protection.

Back to the top

Working Practices: Proposed new statutory right to request a more predictable working pattern

The Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill (the Bill) proposes to give eligible workers a new statutory right to request a more predictable working pattern. This follows the Taylor review of modern working practices and the resulting 2018 Good Work Plan in which the government committed to introduce policies to end ‘one-sided flexibility’. Eligible workers (not just employees) will have the right to make a request where:

  • there is a lack of predictability as regards any part of their work pattern (the work pattern being the number of working hours, the days of the week and the times on those days when the worker works, and the length of the worker’s contract)
  • the change relates to their work pattern
  • their purpose in applying for the change is to get a more predictable work pattern

An application must state that it is a request for a more predictable working pattern, and specify the change applied for and the date on which it is proposed it should take effect.

The Bill does not contain other earlier government commitments to introduce a right to reasonable notice of working hours and compensation for shifts cancelled without reasonable notice.

A worker can only apply for a change to their working pattern if they have been employed by the same employer (whether or not under the same contract) at some point during the month immediately preceding a ‘prescribed period’ (this will be specified in regulations and is expected to be 26 weeks ending with the date of the application). There is no requirement for the service to be continuous.

A worker can only make two applications in any 12-month period. This includes any application under the flexible working provisions if that request is for a change which would result in a more predictable contract.

The Bill contains a similar set of rights for agency workers:

  • an agency worker may be able to apply to a temporary work agency for a more predictable working pattern where they have had a contract with the agency at some point in the month immediately before a ‘prescribed period’ (to be set out in regulations)
  • if the agency worker has worked for a hirer in the same role continuously for 12 weeks (within a period of time which will be set out in regulations) they may also be able to apply to the hirer for a contract of employment, or other worker’s contract, which is more predictable than their current working pattern

There is no definition of ‘predictability’ in the Bill. It does, however, specifically state that workers on a fixed term contract of 12 months or less may request that the term is extended or becomes permanent. Other than that, it seems that a ‘lack of predictability’ will cover any worker whose hours or days vary in a way which provides them with uncertainty, such as:

  • casual/zero hours workers without a guaranteed number of hours
  • annualised hours workers if the employer has discretion over the working pattern
  • workers whose hours are determined by a shift pattern or rota, where that pattern/rota varies unpredictably

In many ways the process for dealing with requests reflects the flexible working regime. There is no obligation on the employer to agree to a request, but they must deal with the application in a reasonable manner and respond within one month. An employer can only reject an application for one or more of the specified reasons, which are:

  • the burden of additional costs
  • detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
  • detrimental impact on the recruitment of staff
  • detrimental impact on other aspects of the employer’s business
  • insufficiency of work during the periods the worker proposes to work
  • planned structural changes

If the worker’s contract terminates during the one month ‘decision period’ the requirements still apply. However, there are then some additional acceptable grounds for refusing a request such as the employer having acted reasonably in dismissing for misconduct or redundancy. A worker will be able to bring an employment tribunal claim if an employer fails to follow the requirements set out above which, if the claim is successful, could result in an order for reconsideration of the request or compensation. The amount of compensation will be set by regulations and could be limited to eight weeks’ pay as it is under the flexible working regime.

There is no timetable for implementation yet and, as noted above, some of the detail of how the right to request will operate in practice still has to be set out in separate regulations.

The new right will have the most impact in sectors where the use of casual workers and changeable shift patterns/rotas is widespread, and on businesses using short fixed-term contracts or agency workers. It is likely to lead to an increased focus on how best to manage these type of working arrangements.

The Bill only provides for the right to ask for a more predictable working pattern, not a right to a predictable working pattern. However, organisations which engage individuals on unpredictable working patterns will need to establish policies and procedures to deal with requests. They should also be aware that, if employment status isn’t clear, an individual might claim worker status while making an application for a more predictable working arrangement

(Content provided to Lexis-Nexis by Julie Keir, practice development lawyer at Brodies LLP.)

Back to the top

Menopause: Czar urges businesses to step up on policies

Helen Tomlinson, England’s first-ever menopause employment champion has called on businesses to develop policies and to normalize discussing the subject, saying that she has witnessed ‘the transformational power’ that talking about the health condition can have in a workplace. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) announced on 6 March 2023 that it had appointed Tomlinson to the post to raise awareness about the health condition. Tomlinson will also aim to encourage more employers to develop policies so women who experience symptoms are better supported, the DWP added. Tomlinson said that fewer than a quarter of UK businesses ‘currently have a menopause policy, but as I take on this role, I am determined that my generation of women in work will break the menopause taboo and have confidence that their health is valued’.

The DWP said that she will raise awareness of menopause, while promoting the benefits for businesses and the economy when women are supported to stay in work. Her role could also include advising employers about ‘small but significant’ changes they can make to the workplace, including offering women experiencing the symptoms of menopause more regular breaks and creating cooler spaces in offices, the DWP added.

The announcement of Tomlinson’s appointment came after the DWP had previously published official responses to two reports on menopause and the workplace. Tomlinson is Head of Talent in the UK and Ireland at the human resources provider Adecco Group. She was appointed to the role on a voluntary basis by the DWP, where she will work closely with Mims Davies, the Minister for Social Mobility, Youth and Progression. Davies said that menopause is a major reason that too many women leave the workforce early, often when they are at the peak of their skills and experience with so much more still to contribute. Tomlinson will also work closely with Lesley Regan, who was appointed as the government’s first women’s health ambassador in 2022.

According to the DWP, a quarter of women report that they have considered leaving their job due to experiencing menopause. Not all women experience symptoms that stop them from working, but research suggests that those with serious menopausal symptoms take an average of 32 weeks of leave from work over the length of their employment.

Many women tend to suffer in silence during perimenopause and menopause. Seeing this subject acknowledged at government level, gives hope that it will inspire businesses to do the same – educating and raising awareness about menopause-related issues, whilst also providing assistance and support to those who need it.

Back to the top

Further Information:

If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

Back

The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.

Related News

banner services

News & Views

Employment Law Case Update – March 2023

  • Employment,

  • 27th March 2023

Employment Law

A round-up of the most significant employment law cases to be published over the last month regarding unfair dismissal and determining the date the contract was terminated, considering how an employee’s disabilities may have affected his conduct, respecting privacy through restricted reporting at tribunals and a look at how the ICO and Easylife settled a monetary penalty for unlawful data processing.

Unfair Dismissal: Determining the effective date of termination of the contract

In Meaker v Cyxtera Technology UK Ltd [2023] EAT 17 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee’s appeal, concerning the correct approach, in law, to the calculation of the effective date of termination of employment (EDT), pursuant to s.97 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and for the purposes of a complaint of unfair dismissal. The employee appealed after his unfair dismissal claim was struck out as being out of time. The employer argued that the determination of the EDT was not governed by contractual principles and that, where an employee was dismissed in breach of contract, the EDT was the date on which the dismissal was communicated, regardless of whether he accepted it.

The EAT ruled that the employment tribunal (the ET) had not erred in holding that a letter, which the employer had sent to the employee in February 2020, was a termination letter; and that the effective date of termination, for the purposes of the unfair dismissal claim, was the date of receipt of that letter, even if it had been a repudiatory breach that had not been accepted by the claimant at common law. The EAT held that it was not bound to conclude that the meaning of the letter was rendered ambiguous by the fact that the opening paragraph of the relevant settlement agreement had referred to termination being effected by mutual agreement; and that the ET had been entitled to take the view that, even where there had been no mutual agreement, the termination (by the letter) had been clear.

The EAT ruled that there was no sign in the authorities that it was considered that the EDT would only be the date of a repudiatory breach if the contract had, in fact, been brought to an end by the employee accepting that breach. Further, the EAT held that the ET had not erred in holding that the employee had not shown that it had not been reasonably practicable for him to have presented his unfair dismissal complaint in time.

Back to the top

Disability Discrimination: Determining whether an employee’s disabilities had had an effect on his conduct

In McQueen v General Optical Council [2023] EAT 36, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee’s appeal against the employment tribunal’s (the ET’s) decision, dismissing his claim which alleged unfavourable treatment by the respondent employer because of something arising in consequence of a disability, pursuant to s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). The employee had dyslexia, some symptoms of Asperger’s Syndrome, neurodiversity and left sided hearing loss, which had caused some difficulties with his interactions in the workplace. The employer, which was the statutory regulator of optometrists and opticians practising in the UK, had employed the employee as a registration officer. The employee had had ‘meltdowns’ at work, which had led to disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, he had left that employment.

The employee contended that: (i) the ET had misapplied the broad test of causation required where a claim under s.15 was being considered, in that its reasoning had been contrary to the psychiatric and psychological evidence; (ii) the disability did not, necessarily, need to be the sole or even main reason for the ‘something’ that arose in consequence of it; (iii) the employer had, itself, linked the employee’s behaviour to his disabilities; and (iv) in considering whether there had been discrimination of the kind where ‘A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability’ (EqA 2010 s 15(1)(a)), the ET had failed to appreciate that the words ‘in consequence of’ were, at least, as broad as the ‘because of’ test.

The EAT held that, although it had reservations about the structure and quality of the ET’s decision and reasoning, the ET had not erred in law or principle in the application of s.15 to the facts; and that it had not adopted too strict a test of causation when considering the effects of the employee’s disabilities. The correct reading of the decision was that the ET had found that those effects had not played any part in the conduct that had led to the unfavourable treatment complained of. The EAT held that, once the ET had determined that the employee’s disabilities had not had any effect on his conduct on the occasions in question, the further question whether any unfavourable treatment had been ‘because of’ that conduct had not arisen.

Back to the top

Restricted Reporting: Anonymity in hearing cases in the tribunals

In A v Choice Support (Formerly MCCH Ltd) [2023] EAT 18, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) ruled on the respondent’s application, pursuant to r.19 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, SI 1993/2854, to make permanent a temporary restricted reporting order which had been made at the EAT level, pursuant to r.23 of the 1993 Rules, and arising out of s.11 of the Employment Tribunal’s Act 1996 (the Act), and in line with an order made by the employment tribunal (the ET) pursuant to r.50 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations, SI 2013/1237 (r.50) and s.11 of the Act. The application arose in circumstances where the respondent provided support to vulnerable adults, and the employee alleged that an individual (EA), with whom she had worked at the same property, had raped her.

The EAT held that: (i) r.50 set out a much broader discretion beyond s.11 of the Act; (ii) the orders should make specific reference to which elements of s.11 and/or r.50 the relevant decision was applying; (iii) the distinction between anonymity orders and restrictions on reporting should clearly be separate parts of any such order, setting out whether they were made pursuant to the section or on broader grounds; (iv) if there was concern about jigsaw identification, any order should be made in terms which clearly prohibited publication of any particular detail of the case facts which it was thought might lead to identification; and (v) a restricted reporting order should only be made (and made permanent) when a less restrictive order would not suffice.

The EAT held that the employee should remain anonymised, that EA’s rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been engaged and that, as ‘a person affected’, he should be anonymised and that, because of the risk of jigsaw identification, EA’s parents should remain anonymised. Further, the EAT ruled that the anonymisation should be made the subject of a permanent order.

Back to the top

Data Protection: ICO and Easylife reach agreement regarding monetary penalty

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has reached an agreement with Easylife Ltd (Easylife) to reduce the monetary penalty notice to £250,000 for breaching the UK General Data Protection Regulation, Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR). Easylife has accepted the ICO’s findings as set out in the monetary penalty notice and has agreed to pay the reduced fine. This follows the ICO’s fine to Easylife on 4 October 2022, where an investigation found that Easylife was making assumptions about customers’ medical conditions, based on their purchase history, to sell further health related products. This was deemed to involve processing of a special category data without a lawful basis, where Easylife has since stopped the unlawful processing of special category data.

Back to the top

Further Information:

If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com.

Back

The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.

Related News