Sexual harassment will become a "qualifying disclosure" under whistleblowing law from April 2026. This will mean protection from detriment and unfair dismissal for whistleblowers making a sexual harassment disclosure. So, this will mean that a complaint or report of sexual harassment at work will be treated as a protected disclosure under whistleblowing legislation.Employers will need to update their Whistleblowing Policy to maintain compliance with the amended legislation.<h2 id="cea115fb-a14d-4667-a554-0c8d882c5935" data-toc-id="cea115fb-a14d-4667-a554-0c8d882c5935">What is Whistleblowing? </h2>UK law protects workers who raise concerns about wrongdoing in the public interest. Such concerns include criminal offenses, dangers to health and safety, environmental damage and breaches of legal duty. These protections are set out in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.To qualify for protection, a disclosure must relate to specific types of wrongdoing (such as those noted above) and be made to an appropriate person, such as an employer or regulator. Where a disclosure meets the legal test, workers are then protected from being dismissed or subjected to detriment (e.g. disciplinary action, demotion, blocked from training, etc.) because they spoke up.There is no minimum length of service required for whistleblowing protection.If a tribunal finds that a dismissal or other adverse treatment was “materially influenced” by a protected disclosure then the employer can face an uncapped compensation award.Sourced by: Gavin Parrott

Sexual harassment will become a "qualifying disclosure" under whistleblowing law from April 2026.

Changes to Whistleblowing protections under UK law

A new report by Empathy indicates a significant lack of employer support to employees when they are grieving. The report highlighted that as the UK has an ageing population there are now more people caring for ageing parents whilst simultaneously supporting their immediate families.The consequence is that an increasing proportion of UK employees are carrying a significant burden when a loved one dies. This cohort of employees have to balance months of administrative, legal, financial and emotional strain from a bereavement with attempting to stay productive at work.Empathy’s findings show employers struggle to keep pace with the increase in bereavement related pressures. The report shows a gap between what employees need and what their employer provides. This misalignment is undermining employee wellbeing, productivity, and retention.<h2 id="afcdefef-cf0d-49a6-942f-0a6c32c472c0" data-toc-id="afcdefef-cf0d-49a6-942f-0a6c32c472c0">Employer risks</h2>Employees now expect meaningful support from their employers following a bereavement.The Empathy data shows that 48% of employees that have experienced a loss would leave their job if the support from their employer was inadequate. This figure is highest amongst younger generations with 57% of Millennials and 74% of Gen Z saying they would leave if they deemed the support inadequate.The findings show that 92% of employee placed a high value on bereavement related employee benefits.23% of employees said the level of bereavement related benefits would influence their decision when considering a potential new employer. 100% of Gen Z employees placed a high value on bereavement-related employee benefits. The data indicates the wellbeing expectations younger workers now expect from their employers.<h3 id="fa7d79ed-e7c5-4963-a4de-6277ec3bf92e" data-toc-id="fa7d79ed-e7c5-4963-a4de-6277ec3bf92e">The breakdown of the most valuable benefits when considering an employer was:</h3><ul><li>23% bereavement support</li><li>17% parental leave</li><li>11% Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) and counselling services</li><li>5% gym membership and fitness benefits</li></ul>Impact and cost to employers of inadequate bereavement supportThe data shows the significant and long-lasting impact of bereavement on employees.In the first 12 months after a bereavement, 30% of employees still regularly struggle to concentrate at work. Furthermore, 27% of employees acknowledged that they were less productive.The most impacted generational group are millennials. 37% regularly struggled to concentrate and 35% had lower productivity. Furthermore 16% of the cohort were frequently missing work in the months after losing a loved one.The findings indicate that a Bereavement Policy alone is insufficient and employers need to offer more to grieving employees.<h3 id="b5334649-8127-4a0f-a38c-6e71b92abb72" data-toc-id="b5334649-8127-4a0f-a38c-6e71b92abb72">Employer options might include</h3><ul><li>Holding Manager and Employee 121s to identify the support the employee needs</li><li>Giving access to an EAP (employee assistance programme)</li><li>Paying for counselling sessions (or paying for time off to attend appointments)</li><li>Paying for access to financial advice (or paying for time off to attend appointments)</li><li>Temporarily adjusting workings hours or days</li></ul>The research shows a current need for employers to be ready to step in with bereavement support that is both practical and people focused.Sourced by: Gavin Parrott

A new report by Empathy indicates a significant lack of employer support to employees when they are grieving. 

Shortfall in support from employers to grieving employees 

A non-binary NHS therapist, who brought a harassment claim against their employer, has lost their tribunal case when it was ruled that they did not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.The employee, Haech Lockwood, had made a claim of harassment relating to gender reassignment which involved incidents where they had been “mis-pronounced” and “deadnamed.” Deadnamed is the act of calling a transgender person or non-binary person by the name that they no longer use because it matched the gender they were said to have at birth.Lockwood was born female and given the name Heather. They identify as non-binary and use the pronouns they/them. When they first applied for their job, they informed the NHS that they were non-binary. After starting in the role an email was sent to colleagues in their team saying they wished to be known as Haech Lockwood. The email said they identified as trans/gender fluid, their pronouns were they/them and they did not identify as male or female.The email also said that use of their deadname caused gender dysmorphia.The incidents of alleged harassment included delays in updating the trust’s IT systems once Lockwood had changed their first name by deed pool. Lockwood also received a letter from occupational health addressed to “Other Heather Lockwood.” They were referred to as “her” by IT support, “she” at a Covid clinic and by their deadname in patient communications.The tribunal considered Section 7 of the Equality Act and previous tribunal cases in which gender reassignment is intended to cover a “spectrum of moving away from birth sex” (i.e. moving from point A to Z where A and Z are biological sex).<h2 id="5aec4551-3cba-451e-bb8e-262fea967e13" data-toc-id="5aec4551-3cba-451e-bb8e-262fea967e13">The relevant premises being:</h2><ul><li>someone describing themselves as non-binary is not a point A or Z</li><li>someone describing themselves as gender fluid is at different places between point A and Z</li><li>someone transitioning is moving from point A but not necessarily ending at point Z<h2 id="0d1e1d47-c6ea-4de5-b483-64351fea58b9" data-toc-id="0d1e1d47-c6ea-4de5-b483-64351fea58b9">Tribunal Findings</h2></li></ul>The tribunal said, “the claimant is non-binary. Their sex at birth was female. They have no intention to transition to the male sex. Then have changed their name by deed poll to Haech and live under that name. They have the preferred pronouns of they/them. The claimant intends taking no other steps to change their sex, medical or otherwise.”The judgement cited the Supreme Court’s recent finding (in the For Women Scotland case) that “sex” within the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex and therefore sex is a binary concept i.e. male and female.The tribunal asked “what journey” did Section 7 of the Equality Act require the employee to be on for them to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment? Referring to the Supreme Court ruling that sex is biological and binary then the “journey” can only be from one sex to another.Section 7 protects the process of reassignment and the protections for “sex” and “gender reassignment” are separate for the purposes of discrimination with each having separate protections.The actions taken by the employee were steps to move away from the female sex to a different gender identity (i.e. non-binary). These were not steps to reassign their sex from female to male.Consequently, the tribunal found that Lockwood “does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.”The tribunal did acknowledge Lockwood was offended and upset by the incidents but could not conclude that these had violated their dignity.Whilst this finding does not set a precedent in case law unless the decision is upheld at appeal it is a significant guide for how gender identity should be interpreted under the Equality Act.Sourced by: Gavin Parrott

A non-binary NHS therapist, who brought a harassment claim against their employer, has lost their tribunal case