Top 5 recent workplace developments – July 2025

Here is our selection of key recent employment law developments for employers, HR professionals and in-house lawyers.

1. Roadmap for employment reforms 
2. Non-disclosure Agreements to be limited
3. Update to the EHRC’s interim update on single sex spaces
4. Disability discrimination: neurodiversity
5. Disability discrimination: reasonable adjustments

1. Roadmap for employment reforms 

The government has set out the timetable for when their employment law reforms will take effect

We now have more information about the planned timetable for upcoming consultations and when the key measures will take effect. One of the most significant proposals is to make unfair dismissal a ‘day one’ right. This change has been pushed back to 2027, but other reforms will take effect earlier. Some of the key dates are below but a fuller timetable is here.

From April 2026:

• Statutory Sick Pay (SSP): SSP will be payable from the first day of absence and available to all employees regardless of their earnings
• Paternity Leave and unpaid Parental Leave: allowing employees to take these forms of leave from day one of employment 
• Collective redundancies: doubling the maximum period of the protective award from 90 days’ pay to 180 days’ pay.

From October 2026:

• Employment Tribunal time limits: extending the time limit for employees to claim against their employer from 3 to 6 months 
• Preventing sexual harassment: requiring employers to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment 
• Fire and re-hire: restrictions on dismissal and re-engagement as a means of making contractual changes (fire and re-hire)

From 2027:

• Unfair dismissal: day one unfair dismissal rights 
• Mandatory gender pay gap and menopause action plans 
• Collective redundancy consultation: new trigger for collective redundancy consultation obligations
• Zero hours: new rights for zero and low hours contract and agency workers 

The government has also published a wide-ranging review of parental leave and pay entitlements. You can read more about that in our detailed article. 

Practical point:

The current timetable gives employers more time to prepare for some key changes such as ‘day one’ unfair dismissal rights.  

We’ll continue our regular briefings and support employers with preparing for the changes ahead.

2. Non-disclosure Agreements to be limited

Updates to the Employment Rights Bill as it progresses through Parliament

The Employment Rights Bill is still making its way through Parliament. Several amendments have been suggested by members of the House of Lords. You can read more about them here. 

The latest version of the Employment Rights Bill now includes a proposal that would make Non-disclosure Agreements (NDA) covering harassment and discrimination between an employer and worker void. 

Whilst in the context of the #MeToo movement, various groups have been advocating for a ban on NDAs for some time, this was not included in the initial draft of the Bill.  

Practical point:

It goes without saying that a ban on NDAs would have a big impact on employers who routinely include non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements. The Government has indicated it may allow some NDAs in an ‘excepted agreement’. We will have to wait for more detail on this.

3. Update to the EHRC’s interim update on single sex spaces

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has updated its interim update on the practical implications of the Supreme Court’s decision on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010

The EHRC’s initial interim update in April 2025 had a particular focus on single sex facilities. Given the Supreme Court’s decision in the For Women Scotland case was not decided on this topic, this provoked some questions and even legal challenges.  

The revised EHRC interim update issued in June 2025 removed the statement that it is compulsory to provide sufficient single sex toilets, as well as sufficient single sex changing and washing facilities.  Instead, it restates the current legal position (as set out in the 1992 Health and Safety Regulations).  In brief, these say that when providing toilets, or when changing and washing facilities are required by the nature of the job, men and women should have separate facilities unless each facility is in a separate room with a lockable door and is for use by only one person at a time.  

The interim update goes on to say that in workplaces and services that are open to the public where separate single-sex facilities are lawfully provided, then trans women should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex.  

The EHRC highlights that trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use and that where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided.

Practical point:

We consider that there is some ambiguity in the wording of the interim update. The EHRC has also said that its interim update is not ‘guidance’. 

It’s likely there will be either a further case, legislation or guidance that specifically addresses what the terms ‘men’ and ‘women’ mean in the context of the 1992 Regulations. For now, employers face a difficult balancing act in seeking to respect the rights, safety and dignity of all employees. 

4. Disability discrimination: neurodiversity

Having a clinical diagnosis of ADHD or autism could help to prove the impact of the condition on the employee

Mr Stedman had diagnoses for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He applied for a role as an Animation Host with Haven Leisure Ltd and was unsuccessful. He then brought a claim of disability discrimination against Haven Leisure Ltd based on the way that it handled his application. 

Before the main hearing, the Employment Tribunal was asked to consider whether Mr Stedman was disabled; that is did he have a physical or mental physical impairment that had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. In this case, the ET concluded that he was not disabled. 

He appealed and won. In judging whether the adverse effect is substantial, the comparison is between the claimant as they are and as they hypothetically would be without the impairment. It is not a question of weighing up the person can do, versus what they cannot.  

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) commented that just because someone has a diagnosis of ASD or ADHD does not mean that they are disabled. Autism and ADHD manifest in different ways in different people.  However, the EAT’s view was a diagnosis may well be relevant to the question of whether the impairment has a ‘substantial adverse effect’ and that a diagnosis ‘reflects a clinical judgment that someone is significantly different from the norm as regards the area of functioning covered by the diagnosis”.  Although this point was not the key issue for the court to consider, it is still useful guidance.

Practical point:

An estimated 15% of the UK population are neurodiverse. If someone has a medical diagnosis of a neurodiverse condition, that will be a factor to take into account when considering whether someone is disabled. It’s important to consider what reasonable adjustments a disabled job applicant or employee may require and take steps to avoid any disability related detrimental treatment.

Mr Harry Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd

5. Disability Discrimination: reasonable adjustments

No obligation to make an adjustment if it wouldn’t have made a difference to the employee

Although the facts in this case arise out of the very unique Covid landscape, the lessons can be drawn more broadly. Mr Hindmarch worked for the North-East Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust as a non-emergency ambulance driver. He was provided with FFP2 masks to protect him. Emergency ambulance drivers were provided with FFP3 masks (which offer slightly higher levels of aerosol protection levels) which would protect them when delivering first aid and resuscitation; something that Mr Hindmarch would not normally be required to carry out.

Mr Hindmarch suffered from extreme anxiety and a particular fear of catching Covid from patients. He asked for an FFP3 mask, but his employer refused based on reasons including: a) such a mask would not provide 100% protection; and b) Mr Hindmarch was unsure if he’d be able to return to work even if he was provided with an FFP3 mask.  

Mr Hindmarch’s health deteriorated to the point that he was unable to return to work in any capacity. Eventually he was dismissed and Mr Hindmarch claimed both unfair dismissal and that his employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments for him by providing him with an FFP3 mask.  

The Employment Tribunal accepted the Ambulance NHS Trust’s argument that, even if they had provided the FFP3 mask, Mr Hindmarch would not have been able to return to work because of the acute nature of his anxiety. The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed, confirming that if the steps that it is suggested an employer should have taken by way of reasonable adjustment (whether in the form of the provision of an auxiliary aid or otherwise) would have no real chance of avoiding or reducing the disadvantage, then the employer is under no duty to take those steps.

Practical point:

It’s reassuring for employers that they are not obliged to make adjustments that are not going to make a difference to the employee’s ability to work. However, judging how effective an adjustment will be at avoiding or reducing a disadvantage may be difficult in some cases. If in doubt, always take advice.

Hindmarch v North East Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust