AskAmanda

17/12/2025

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of hosting an insightful panel discussion at C**t Technology Services with Julie Williams of Lighting Fires Executive Coaching and Joe Jones of Refreshing Recruitment on the power of personal brand at work.

Aligned with C**t's 'Connecting with Purpose' strategy, we explored what a personal brand is and why you need one, how to build a personal brand that is authentic and unique to you, and the impact has on how you position yourself to progress your career.

If you would like to discuss holding a similar event for your business, in person or online, do get in touch for a confidential conversation.

**t

28/11/2025

After a fanfare for its initial introduction, the Employment Rights Bill has been quietly making its way through Parliament.

The Government has issued an update on progress of the Bill, following further discussions with unions and employers, which confirms that:

- the current 2 year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims will not be scrapped altogether but instead, it will be reduced to 6 months. So employees will need a minimum of 6 months’ continuous service to issue such a claim
- the existing day 1 right to bring discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal claims (only certain dismissals are deemed automatically unfair, eg dismissals for blowing the whistle) will not change
- the cap on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal will be lifted (it is currently the lower of one year’s gross pay or £118,223)

I have seen an uptick in discrimination claims accompanying unfair dismissal claims. Whether this is because it is now more difficult to secure a new job in the current market, or this is simply a way to increase compensation beyond the unfair dismissal cap, remains to be seen. Lifting the cap could change this approach for claimants.

More here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/an-update-on-the-employment-rights-bill

Agreement reached with key stakeholders on the unfair dismissal elements of the Employment Rights Bill.

31/10/2025

Come and join us at this wonderful charity The Mission to Seafarers

Are you an experienced Board leader with knowledge of the maritime sector? We seek a new Chair of the Board to lead our Board of Trustees.

Our new Chair will lead an engaged and high-calibre Board, support our Secretary General, and represent the Mission across the maritime and welfare sectors.

Candidates should demonstrate proven governance and Board leadership experience and a credible network within the maritime community.

Apply now: http://bit.ly/4nz5MX8
Deadline: Friday, 28 November 2025

11/09/2025

A new case has caused quite a stir in the media this week, but the headlines aren’t all they seem. It was widely reported that the case means that calling your boss a “d***head” is not a sackable offence. However, the concerned won her case more for the way the handled the dismissal than because of what she said.

Kerrie Herbert was dismissed by Main Group for calling her manager and another director “d***heads” during a heated argument that began when she thought documents about costs on her boss’s desk meant that her job was at risk. Ms Herbert became very upset and hurled the insult in the heat of the moment. In response her manager told her she was fired and to “f*** off”.

Under Ms Herbert’s employment contract, she could be dismissed for using abusive language if she had first been given a prior warning. The employer claimed it had dismissed Ms Herbert for poor performance but it was found that she was immediately dismissed for using the insult and that the employer had failed to follow a proper procedure in doing so.

When dismissing employees immediately (for ), it is important that the conduct in question is serious enough to constitute a repudiatory . This is a breach by the employee of the employment contract that is so serious that it entitles the employer to treat the contract as immediately at an end. Here, the tribunal decided that the context of a heat of the moment argument meant that the insult was not serious enough to be a repudiatory breach. The tribunal explained that a finding of gross misconduct does not mean that dismissal is always appropriate. It depends on any mitigating circumstances - the fact that the insult was used in the heat of the moment was sufficient mitigation not to dismiss.

Ms Herbert was awarded £30K which included compensation for unfair dismissal, breach of contract (failure to give notice or pay notice pay) and, unusually for tribunal cases, her legal costs. This is because the employer was found to have tried to frustrate the process by claiming it was insolvent and could not pay, when its directors were still actively listed with Companies House. It appears that the employer sought to dissolve the employing company and continue to trade via a new one to avoid liability for the compensation awarded.

The moral of the story for employers? Follow your own procedures before dismissing any employee (even for gross misconduct), make your procedures entirely non-contractual so that you have flexibility to adapt them to the situation, and don’t try to avoid liability by setting up a new company instead (as the tribunal will see straight through that corporate veil). And finally, don’t believe everything you read in the press.

If you’re an employer in need of advice to manage workplace conflict, or you would like to ensure your procedures are fit for purpose, do get touch for a confidential chat.

18/07/2025

26/04/2025

Following last week’s Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, the has issued interim guidance on the impact of the ruling on workplaces amongst other spaces. The guidance is interim while the EHRC updates its Code of Practice.

For workplaces, it is important to ensure that there are sufficient single s*x toilet, shower and changing facilities where needed. Where possible, mixed s*x facilities with lockable doors should be provided in addition to single s*x facilities so that there is a space for everyone, and trans people still have a space available for their use.

I have been reviewing workplace facilities with my employer clients since the ruling was published and advising on changes to designation of facilities where needed as a result, importantly to ensure that they remain inclusive whilst respecting individual rights.

The EHRC interim guidance can be found here - https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

If you would like to discuss how your workplace may need to change or would like to review your equality policies following the ruling, do get in touch for a confidential discussion.

News An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment Published: 25 April 2025 Table of contents Related information EHRC statement on Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers Download PDF Following the UK Supreme Court judgment in For Women Sco...

19/04/2025

Following my post earlier in the week about the landmark Supreme Court decision on the definition of “woman” and “s*x” under the , the Equality & Human Rights Commission has released a statement on the decision which employers should read here: EHRC statement on Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers | EHRC

As the regulator for the Equality Act, the EHRC will now update its Code of Practice to take into account the ruling, and aims to present the new Code to Parliament before the summer recess.

Employers should review their equality policies and practices in light of the decision and keep a watching brief on the updated Code. For confidential advice on what to consider and how to approach this sensitive topic, do get in touch.

The landmark ruling could have major implications for how s*x-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.

16/04/2025

The Supreme Court today made a landmark decision on the Equality Act 2010 (“EA”), which protects people from discrimination in the UK. The campaign group For Women Scotland took action against the Scottish government over the definition of “women” in the Gender Reassignment Act 2004 (“GRA”) as it included transgender women. The case tested legally for the first time whether someone with a gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) who identifies as female should be treated as a “woman” under the EA.

The Supreme Court decided that the terms “woman” and “s*x” in the EA refer to a biological woman and biological s*x. The Court also ruled that having a GRC doesn’t change a person’s legal s*x under the EA.

There remain separate protections in the EA for gender reassignment and s*xual orientation. The Court decided that conflating these characteristics with those of someone with a GRC would create two sub-groups who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, incorrectly giving greater rights to those with a GRC. The ruling doesn’t affect the rights of trans people not to be discriminated against due to gender reassignment under the EA though. They can still bring claims for direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation due to associative and perceived discrimination.

This ruling has huge consequences for how single s*x spaces and services work in the UK. The Court gave several examples in its judgment including counselling for r**e and domestic violence, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms, refuges, r**e crisis centres, finding that trans women with a GRC can be excluded from these spaces or services where it is proportionate to do so. Therefore a woman using such services could reasonably object to a transgender woman using those services too even if they have a GRC. Equally a man using single s*x services could reasonably object to a transgender man with a GRC using those services because, under the ruling, the transgender man is not a biological man for the purposes of the EA.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that whilst the GRA allows individuals to change their legal gender, this does not affect the legal meaning of s*x in the EA, keeping a clear distinction between gender reassignment and biological s*x under discrimination law.

This decision will also affect an ongoing tribunal case involving a female NHS nurse who objected to a transgender doctor using a female changing room, and employers will have to approach these scenarios differently and review their equality policies in light of this decision going towards.

The landmark ruling could have major implications for how s*x-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.

05/04/2025

Tomorrow (6 April 2025) marks an important milestone for parental rights in the UK, with the government introducing the right to take (“NCL”). This provides critical support for parents whose newborns require extended hospital care.

✳️ NCL is a day 1 right allowing parents to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave if their baby is born prematurely or requires extended hospital care after birth up to the age of 28 days. This applies to babies who need to stay in hospital for more than 7 days
✳️ Both parents (inc partners of birth parents, surrogate parents & adoptive parents) can take NCL
✳️ NCL is paid at the statutory rate (as with other family leave types eg , , ) for up to 12 weeks. The government reviews the rate once a year. For 2025, it’s the lower of £187.18 per week or 90% of average weekly earnings
✳️ NCL can be taken at any time within the baby’s first year, in blocks of at least 1 week up to 12 weeks in total
✳️ NCL applies in addition to other types of family leave although two different types of leave can’t be taken at the same time. Eg if a parent has already booked statutory parental leave, NCL can be added to the end
✳️ There are 2 tiers of NCL - Tier 1 for the period in which the baby is still receiving neonatal care up to one week after that care has ended, and Tier 2 for the period after Tier 1 ends but before the end of 68 weeks from childbirth
✳️ There are different notice requirements for Tiers 1 and 2
✳️ The same amount of NCL can be taken for multiple births such as twins. Eg twin 1 is in neonatal care for 2 weeks then discharged. A week later twin 2 needs neonatal care for 3 weeks, so the parents are entitled to 5 weeks’ NCL each in total, 2 weeks for twin 1 and 3 weeks for twin 2
✳️ Some employers may offer an enhanced NCL policy, eg allowing NCL from the first day of neonatal care rather than after 7 days, or an enhanced rate of pay.

NCL is a big step forward for parental leave in the UK which recognises the challenges of having a or sick baby. Until now many parents have had to rely on sick leave or holiday entitlement (particularly fathers where paternity leave is not long enough to cover the period of neonatal care). This is alongside the government’s Employment Rights Bill which passed its third reading in Parliament last month and will provide additional rights such as day 1 and , support and enhanced protection against unfair dismissal for women and new mothers.

If you are an and would like to discuss how to implement an NCL in your business, do get in touch for a confidential discussion.

29/03/2025

We're pleased to announce that Amanda Lennon has recently joined us as one of our new Trustees.

A multilingual employment lawyer and HR Director, Amanda has vast international experience in various sectors, including large corporate companies, SMEs, start-ups, charities, and more.

Following a successful corporate career in senior HR and legal roles, Amanda established her consultancy business in 2020. She is also an experienced Governor, Non-Executive Director, and Board advisor.

Amanda became a Trustee with The Mission to Seafarers on 29 January 2025. Please join us in welcoming Amanda as she embarks on this new journey alongside our fantastic Board.

Meet our trustees here: https://www.missiontoseafarers.org/about/our-people/our-trustees

21/01/2025

An worker who took over 400 days of sick leave due to complex mental health issues has been awarded £50,000 in compensation for .

In Kitching v University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Zoe Kitching had several long periods of sick leave over a 4 year period but her employer continually failed to accept that she had disabilities (including anxiety and depression) protected by the Equality Act 2010. One manager even refused to acknowledge she had a disability at all despite the medical evidence. Requests for reasonable adjustments to reduce hours were refused and eventuality Ms Kitching was dismissed for her absences.

The Tribunal found that the employer should have permitted a high level of sickness and the failure to do so was a failure to make reasonable adjustments in itself. This, coupled with the employer’s irrational refusal to acknowledge that Ms Kitching was disabled in spite of the medical evidence confirming that she was, meant that she won her case for disability discrimination.

I cannot fathom why the employer refused to acknowledge Ms Kitching’s disability in the face of clear medical evidence other than it blatantly disregarded this. The dismissal may not have been unfair had it taken a more sensitive stance and allowed higher levels of absence for her. This case demonstrates the pitfalls of managing cases involving disabilities and reinforces the need for employers to take (and listen to) prompt advice to manage those cases sensitively and appropriately.

For advice on navigating cases such as this to avoid Tribunal claims, do get in touch for a confidential discussion.

02/12/2024

What do you think of the allegations that have recently come to light about at the BBC? Do you think he crossed the line, should he be 'cancelled' or do you think the media's treatment of him is unfair? I joined the debate this morning on live TV:

https://youtu.be/hJO_JwLry4M

*xualharassment

I was interviewed about the HR and employment law implications of the s*xual harassment allegations against Gregg Wallace, a BBC presenter