What's new in employment law: October 2025

In a new article series, we summarise the employment law developments you need to know about. Each month, we'll look at important recent cases, what's been happening in relation to new legislation, and other interesting developments.

Case update

Our first case this month is Leicester City Council v Parmar. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the employer had discriminated against the employee on the grounds of her race when it transferred her temporarily from her role and subjected her to a groundless disciplinary investigation. Next we look at Wainwright v Cennox plc, where the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered if the employment tribunal had made a mistake by failing to analyse whether acts of disability discrimination amounted to fundamental breaches of contract, entitling the employee to resign and bring claims for constructive dismissal and discriminatory dismissal. Could an employee bring claims for racial harassment where the incidents he relied on had happened several years earlier? This was the question in Logo v Payone GmbH and others, our last case this month.

Leicester City Council v Parmar

Mrs Parmar was employed by the Council as a head of service. She was a British national of Indian origin. Her line manager started a disciplinary investigation into her and transferred her to another role on a temporary basis. She was invited to an investigation meeting to discuss two general failures but was not given details of the allegations against her. Neither was she given recordings or transcripts from the meeting. Another manager took over the investigation and invited her to a second investigation meeting, where Mrs Parmar noted that she did not know what she had done wrong. At a third meeting, Mrs Parmar was told there was no case to answer. She brought a race discrimination claim, alleging that two white heads of service had been accused of similar conduct but had not been treated in the same way. She also made a data subject access request and noted that the Council had taken disciplinary action against two non-white senior managers but no white senior managers. An employment tribunal (ET) upheld her claim and the Council appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) then the Court of Appeal, both of which dismissed its appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the ET and the EAT that Mrs Parmar had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of race. The ET had been entitled to find that the Council's different treatment of the two white heads of service (who were in similar circumstances to Mrs Parmar) supported an inference of discrimination so the burden of proof shifted to the Council to show that it did not discriminate. The ET had also been entitled to find that the Council's explanations for its conduct towards Mrs Parmar did not explain its actions and were not credible.

Wainwright v Cennox plc

Mrs Wainwright worked for Cennox as its head of installation. She went on sick leave after being diagnosed with cancer. Ms Cawthorne, a colleague, took over her role temporarily. When Ms Cawthorne resigned to join a competitor, Cennox offered her the head of installation role on a permanent basis to persuade her to stay. The company assumed there would be enough work for two employees when Mrs Wainwright returned to work. Mrs Wainwright found out about Ms Cawthorne's appointment on LinkedIn and contacted the company to ask what was happening. She was told that Ms Cawthorne's appointment was temporary and she could return to her role, which remained the same, when she was better. When Mrs Wainwright was ready to return, she was told that her job was being split in two. She felt that she had been demoted because of her illness. She submitted a grievance, which was rejected, and she appealed then resigned. Her grievance appeal was dismissed after a delay. She brought claims for direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from a disability, victimisation, constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The ET upheld her claim for discrimination arising from a disability but rejected her other claims. She appealed to the EAT.

The EAT upheld her appeal and sent the case back to the ET to decide if the discriminatory acts amounted to fundamental breaches of contract. The ET then held that Mrs Wainwright had been constructively dismissed because the company's treatment of her had damaged the implied term of trust and confidence and she had not affirmed the contract. In addition, the ET held that the dismissal was discriminatory and she had been wrongfully dismissed. The ET awarded her total compensation of over £1.2 million.

Logo v Payone GmbH and others

Mr Logo, a black employee, brought a racial harassment claim against his employer. He relied on three main incidents: a colleague attended the works Christmas party in 2016 wearing black face make-up; a colleague told a racist joke at a dinner that took place in June 2019; and in December 2020 a colleague posted a video clip of a beer advert in a work WhatsApp group, which showed an all-white utopia where everyone was white and blonde. The ET held that the first two incidents had taken place and amounted to racial harassment because of their effect on Mr Logo but it dismissed the claims because Mr Logo had brought them outside the time limit. The ET refused to extend the time limit because the delay meant the witnesses would not be able to recall the incidents accurately. The ET held that the third incident was not related to race and rejected the claim. Mr Logo appealed.

The EAT upheld his appeal. The ET had found that the first two incidents had occurred and were harassment. It was irrelevant to consider the impact of the delay on the witnesses' memories and the ET should have considered that Mr Logo would be left without a remedy if it did not extend time. The ET was wrong to decide that the video clip did not relate to race so could not be harassment. The ET had focussed on the intention of the person who posted it and not the effect on Mr Logo. The claim was remitted to the ET to reconsider whether it was just and equitable to extend the time limit and whether the video clip had the effect of harassment.

Legislation update

The Employment Rights Bill continues its passage through Parliament. It passed the Third Reading in the House of Lords on 3 September and returned to the House of Commons. MPs considered and voted on the various amendments made by the Lords on 15 September, rejecting all the non-Government changes. The Bill will now go back to the Lords in a process known as "ping pong", which describes the back-and-forth movement of a Bill between the two Houses. This process will last until they reach agreement on the text of the Bill. The House of Lords will consider the House of Commons' amendments and reasons on 28 October.

Our Employment Rights Bill timeline (which we update regularly) contains information on the progress of the Bill, and we discuss the timeline for its implementation in our latest podcast

In other legislative news, the new failure to prevent fraud offence under the Economic Crime and Transparency Act 2023 took effect on 1 September. Read more here.

Other developments

You may be interested in the recent developments we summarise below.

Updated EHRC draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations

The EHRC confirmed on 5 September that the final updated draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations had been handed to the Minister for Women and Equalities. It will now be considered by the Government. After ministerial approval, it will be laid before Parliament for 40 days before coming into force.

How to improve gender inequality in the workplace

The Office for Equality and Opportunity and the Women and Equalities Unit have published a document setting out actions employers can take to reduce their gender pay gap. Actions are grouped into four areas: hiring and selection; talent management, learning and development; inclusion and retention; and leadership and accountability.

Neonatal care leave and pay

The Department for Business and Trade has published a technical guide for employers, which covers some of the more technical aspects of the entitlement. It deals with complex situations in more detail.

Workplace absence levels rise

The CIPD's Health and wellbeing at work report 2025, which surveyed over 1,100 employers, has found that UK employees were off sick for an average of 9.4 days in the last 12 months. The pre-pandemic average was 5.8 days and the average in 2023 (the last survey) was 7.8 days. The most common causes of long-term absence (four weeks or more) were mental ill health, musculoskeletal injuries and other long-term health conditions such as cancer. The top causes of short-term absence were minor illnesses, mental ill health and stress/caring responsibilities for children.

FCA provides clarity around workplace savings schemes

One in 10 people have no cash savings, 20% have less than £1,000 put aside and only 7% of employers offer workplace or payroll savings schemes. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) wants to encourage more employers to offer schemes and is addressing the regulatory barriers that seem to prevent employers from doing so. Learn more here.

For further information about any of these developments, please get in touch with the author or your usual WBD contact.