This year is set to bring significant changes in employment laws because of a new government and several high-profile cases. These cases are poised to reshape HR policies and practices, addressing critical issues such as conflicts of belief and freedom of expression, whistleblowing, third-party liability, single-sex exemptions and employment status.
Conflicts of belief and freedom of expression
It’s now well established that employees don’t have to keep their protected religious or philosophical beliefs to themselves and have qualified rights to express and hold opinions that others may find distasteful or offensive. But where should employers draw the line and can they restrict what their staff say in their own time via social media? The appeal courts are set to hear a number of cases that will help to determine these issues.
Higgs v Farmor’s School – Mrs Higgs was dismissed for gross misconduct after reposting a Facebook post critical of the government’s relationship and sex education policy. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) set down the principles that apply. The Court of Appeal has considered this and its judgment is expected soon.
Miller v University of Bristol – Dr Miller, a professor, was dismissed for expressing views on Zionism. The tribunal found his beliefs were protected and his dismissal unfair. The university has appealed, with the case to be heard by the EAT by November 2025.
Lister v New College Swindon – Mr Lister, a teacher with gender-critical beliefs, was dismissed for not using a student’s preferred pronouns. The tribunal found his beliefs were protected but upheld the dismissal as proportionate. Lister has appealed, with the EAT expected to hear the case later this year.
Causing or inducing discrimination
Bailey v Stonewall & Others – Ms Bailey successfully claimed against her chambers for discrimination as a result of her gender-critical beliefs. She unsuccessfully argued that Stonewall induced this discrimination. Bailey has appealed, with the Court of Appeal expected to hear her case later this year.
Single-sex services
For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers – this case examines whether the term ‘woman’ in the Equality Act includes individuals with a gender recognition certificate. The Supreme Court’s decision, expected in the spring, may help clarify the application of single-sex exemptions in employment and services and relevant comparators in sex discrimination cases.
Whistleblowing
Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council – Miss Sullivan claimed she was subjected to a detriment for making protected disclosures after being rejected for jobs. The tribunal and EAT concluded that job applicants are not workers under whistleblower protection. Sullivan has appealed, with the Court of Appeal due to hear the case in February.
MacLennan v British Psychological Society – Mr MacLennan, a charity trustee, claimed detriment for making protected disclosures. The EAT remitted the case back to the tribunal to determine whether his role was akin to occupational status. This decision, although not binding, may influence how trustees are viewed under whistleblower protection.
Employment status: employee, worker or self employed?
Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency – Mr Groom, a volunteer coastal rescue officer, claimed worker status after his membership was terminated. The EAT found he was a worker when engaged in paid activities. This case has been appealed, with the Court of Appeal expected to hear it in November.
These cases will help clarify the boundaries of employment law, particularly around belief expression, third-party liability for discrimination, single-sex exemptions, whistleblower protection and employment status. Employers should stay informed to ensure compliance and adapt their policies accordingly.
Jo Moseley is an employment law specialist at Irwin Mitchell
