Employment law insights - January 2026
Our latest employment law insights.
The unfair dismissal revolution
From 1 January 2027, unfair dismissal law will be very different. Not only will the qualification period be reduced from two years to six months, but the cap on compensation, which has always existed, will be removed completely.
Read more
ACAS Early Conciliation period doubled
A necessary logistic change is likely to lead to far-reaching consequences. Before bringing an Employment Tribunal claim, a prospective claimant must contact ACAS to start a period of ‘Early Conciliation’. The deadline for the individual to start this process is typically 3 months after the date of the act to which the potential claim relates.
Read more
Is being non-binary a protected characteristic?
It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a worker on the basis of their sex or gender reassignment, but is this enough to give protection to an employee who feels that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their “non-binary” gender identity?
Read more
The bathroom wars
The spate of cases regarding the use of single-sex toilets and changing rooms by trans employees has continued unabated. Although the recent judgments lack consistency, they tend to be moving in one direction: that employers should permit employees to use only the single-sex facilities of their biological sex and not their gender identification.
Read more
Is believing that unreformed Islam is ‘problematic’ a protected belief?
Patrick Lee was an Actuary regulated by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA), who posted a large number of tweets stating that traditional Islamic beliefs were not compatible with western values. After an investigation and disciplinary hearing, the IFoA banned him from the profession for two years and fined him.
Read more
Future loss should not necessarily end on a claimant’s 65th birthday
J Davidson was a coach driver for National Express Ltd who was dismissed for failing an alcohol test. The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair because the appeal process was flawed, but applied a 75% reduction to the award to reflect the chance a fair appeal would have resulted in dismissal.